Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time and passed.

ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 21st June.

PETITION

Houses, Leyton (Rents)

Mr. Sorensen: I desire to present a humble Petition of the Lea Bridge Tenants' Association of my constituency, the Borough of Leyton, and it is addressed to the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
It is in respect of the grievances of 83 of my constituents in the Borough of Leyton who are among the decontrolled tenants in an estate of 750 working-class flats recently acquired by a property investment company that has demanded from those tenants increase in rents of from 150 to 200 per cent.
In addition to the 83 signatories are the signatures of the 17 members of the committee of the Lea Bridge Tenants' Association on behalf of its full membership and of 3,413 persons whose signatures of support to this Petition I am forwarding separately to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
In respect of this drastic increase the Petitioners conclude:
Your Petitioners feel that this is unjust and abuse of the Rent Act, 1957, and that it runs counter to the purpose for which the Act was intended.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that this House will take steps to secure such an amelioration of the conditions aforementioned that real hardship may be avoided.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Further Education, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education what discussions have taken place between his Department and Staffordshire Local Education Authority about the project for a college of further education in Newcastle-under-Lyme; and what steps will be taken to provide permanent accommodation for further education in the borough.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): As the hon. Member is aware, a full discussion of this project is to take place between representatives of the local education authority and my Department on 27th June. I hope this talk will prove useful.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Minister for offering to receive this deputation, may I ask him whether he will ensure that on that occasion he hears the voice of the excepted district of Newcastle-under-Lyme where there is at the moment such serious discontent with the present balance of further education facilities on the site of the Clayton Hall Grammar School? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that Newcastle-under-Lyme is well represented?

Sir D. Eccles: That and all other considerations will be taken into account.

Grants to Students (Report)

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement on the Anderson Report.

Mr. Hornby: asked the Minister of Education whether he is yet in a position to announce the date of publication of the Anderson Report.

Sir D. Eccles: The Report of the Committee on Grants to Students, appointed in 1958 by the Secretary of State for Scotland and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. G. Lloyd), is being published today and copies are available in the Vote Office.
The Report brings out how complicated the subject is and what difficult issues of finance and administration it raises. Of these issues the decision relating to the means test is a matter for the Government. On others we shall need to obtain the views of universities, local authorities and schools and we are arranging to do this immediately, so that the Government's decisions can be announced as soon as possible. I ought to tell the House that the earliest date by which any new arrangements could be introduced is the autumn of 1961.
In the meantime, I am sure that the House would want to join with the Secretary of State and myself in thanking Sir Colin Anderson and his colleagues for the thorough, careful manner in which they have dealt with so many acutely controversial issues.

Mrs. White: We on this side of the House would, of course, wish to associate ourselves with the expression of thanks to Sir Colin Anderson and his colleagues. In the nine minutes since the Report was available my study of it has been cursory.
Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House attach very considerable importance to any decision made being on a fully national basis so that students will not be deprived in future, as many have been in the past, according to the location in which they happen to live?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, important as grants to university students may be, we also attach considerable importance to the maintenance of children at school beyond the age of 15, because if they are not enabled to remain at school beyond 15 they will have no chance at all of taking advantage of any decisions made on university grants?
I think it would be advisable if we kept other comments until we have had time to study the Report.

Sir D. Eccles: I sympathise with the hon. Lady, who has done well in nine minutes. We also agree that the question of uniformity as between one student and another in England, Wales and Scotland is a very important matter. Naturally, we feel that grammar school education is the foundation of university students, but it does not come under this Report. We shall consider that separately.

Mr. Hornby: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of having a debate in this House on this subject, as well as discussing the recommendations with local authorities, universities and others? Will he discuss this suggestion with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I will talk it over with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Chetwynd: As the decisions to implement this cannot be made until 1961, does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will not be in a position yet to decide whether the means test should exist or not? Would he consider, in arriving at that decision, whether it could be made retrospective to 1960?

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman would perhaps do well to read the Report. He will see that there is a division of opinion about the means test and a very difficult question of administration arises on taking either one decision or the other.

Sir J. Duncan: In considering the Report, will my right hon Friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland try to arrange things in future so that Scottish students get roughly uniform treatment with English students? There has been a feeling in the past that English students have been doing better than Scottish students in the amount of national help received.

Sir D. Eccles: That is one of the matters that arises in the Report. The Committee is quite firm in its recommendation that the three parts of the United Kingdom should receive the same treatment. I think my hon. Friend can take it that we accept that.

Mrs. White: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, when he is conducting consultations


with various authorities, he will also consult those who are very closely concerned—the National Union of Students?

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot be sure about that. The National Union of Students is always making submissions to me, and I would be very glad to hear what it has to say. We are very pressed for time if we are to legislate early next Session.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education if he will now award adequate dependant's allowances to all categories of training college students.

Sir D. Eccles: I shall be examining the whole field of grants to students, including dependant's grants, in the light of the report of the Anderson Committee.

Mr. Boyden: Is there any reason why mature students taking three year courses should not have the same treatment as mature students taking two-year courses? Is this not an anomaly which could be removed at the stroke of a pen?

Sir D. Eccles: It may be better to consider the whole range of awards to teacher training colleges.

Mr. Greenwood: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with the principle that there should be uniformity of treatment between these two classes of people who are in exactly the same financial position? There is a growing sense of injustice on the part of some of these students.

Sir D. Eccles: I will look at this problem urgently.

Teachers

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities have not been able to recruit sufficient teachers to reach their January, 1960, quota.

Sir D. Eccles: Provisional figures show that in January, 1960, 54 local education authorities were 1 per cent. or more below their quota. This is slightly better than last year.

Mr. Boyden: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what steps he is taking to carry out the suggestion of the Crowther Report that some experiments should be made to see what effect financial inducements will have in steering teachers to under-staffed areas?

Sir D. Eccles: A system of differential allowances according to area would be very difficult to operate.

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Education what inquiries he has made into the effect of the aggregation of incomes for taxation on the number of married women prepared to return to teaching in schools or training colleges.

Sir D. Eccles: None, Sir.

Mrs. White: As the right hon. Gentleman makes a stronger appeal to married women than, I should think, any of his Ministerial colleagues, with the possible exception of the Minister of Health, would he not consider taking the initiative, perhaps with some voluntary organizations, to make an inquiry into this matter? This affects not only teachers and the staff of training colleges, but also school dentists and school architects, of whom there appears to be a chronic shortage, which he uses as an excuse on many occasions for not being able to undertake certain works. There is a strong feeling among organisations of professional women that this is a serious factor. Would he look into this, because it affects the supply of highly qualified professional married women?

Sir D. Eccles: The recruitment of architects and dentists lies outside my responsibilities, but the head of the School of Social Studies at Sheffield University is now undertaking an examination into the wastage of women teachers. We are giving him all the help that we can, and no doubt some interesting information will come out of it.

Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Education what steps he proposes to take to include the widows and orphans of teachers in the Teachers Superannuation Scheme.

Sir D. Eccles: Provision is already made for this in the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1956, but the teachers have so far felt unable to agree to a scheme in the form provided for in that Act.

Mr. Fitch: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this scheme in its present form is entirely unsatisfactory? Is he aware that widespread representations have been made to local education


authorities on this matter? Does he not also agree that when a man has served a lifetime in a profession which is not too well paid he should at least feel that in the event of his death his widow is provided for?

Sir D. Eccles: When the Act was introduced we thought that this provision would be worth taking up by the teachers, but they have decided otherwise. I agree that if we had endless finance it would be a very good thing.

Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Education what plans he has to solve the staffing problems, which will occur during the year 1962–63 as a result of the introduction of the three-year training course for teachers.

Sir D. Eccles: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary outlined our plans during the debate on the Crowther Report. I am holding a conference in July with representatives of the local authorities, teachers and others concerned to encourage speedy action.

School Pupils (Political Allegiances)

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been directed to the fact that at a school, details of which have been supplied to him, security officers have interviewed the headmaster and brought pressure to bear upon him to ascertain from his sixth form pupils the nature of their political allegiances; and what guidance he will give to principals of schools to ensure that, when any approaches of this kind are made, both principals and pupils are aware of the proper procedure for dealing with them.

Sir D. Eccles: I looked into this as soon as I heard of it. The headmaster of the school assured me that the statements made in the first part of the Question are entirely without foundation and that no inquiries have been made about boys still in the school. No guidance from me is, therefore, required.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is rather worse than I had expected? I am informed that this matter arose in the following way: there is no doubt that the headmaster interrogated one class of the lower sixth—containing about 27

boys—about their political affiliations, telling them, for instance, that they should not wear the badge of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and warning them of the danger of holding left-wing views. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that subsequently, when parents and boys protested to the headmaster, he told them that one of the reasons he had asked them about their political affiliations was because he had been asked to do so by M.I.5?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have supporting evidence for this which I would be glad to show him privately? Finally, is it not, in any case, highly improper that headmasters should ask questions of this kind, whether they are prompted to do so by the police or anybody else?

Sir D. Eccles: What advice on the facts of life a headmaster gives to his pupils is entirely within the province of the headmaster.[HoN. MEMBERS:
"Nonsense".] A headmaster is entitled to say to his pupils that in his opinion, this or that is not good for them in the rest of their lives. He is entitled to do that, and the Minister has no control over that whatever—and I am sure that the House would not wish me to have any control. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, if he will send me the information, I will, of course, look into it.

Mr. Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that this must be the first time that a Minister of Education has enunciated the principle that it is perfectly proper for a headmaster to seek to interfere with the political view of his pupils? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the complaint made by my hon. Friend and seek to ensure that the Prime Minister will represent to the security authorities that, if any steps of this kind have been taken, any information obtained in this way will immediately be expunged from the records?

Sir D. Eccles: The headmaster informed me—as, I think, I said in my original answer—that no inquiries were made about boys in the school. [Interruption.] It is common practice when a young man seeks an appointment with the Atomic Energy Authority for inquiries to be made into his past political affiliations.

Mr. Grimond: When the Minister says that no inquiries have been made about boys still in the school, will he make it clear that this is not to be taken as casting any imputation on boys who have just left the school? Is that his intention, or were the inquiries of a more normal sort?

Sir D. Eccles: It does not cast any aspersion on anybody who has left the school, but it is routine practice when an appointment to a security job is being made to inquire into the antecedents of the person.

Mr. Peart: Is not the Minister aware that no headmaster in any school should interfere with the political views or liberties of a student in the school, either inside it or outside? Will he give an assurance that the Ministry of Education would disapprove of any interference with that fundamental liberty by police, M.I.5, or any other organisation?

Sir D. Eccles: Of course, I give an assurance as to interference with liberty, but in education some advice is given about different things the whole time. That, under our system, is left to the headmaster.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that we cannot debate this now.

Mr. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that in view of this very unsatisfactory answer from the Minister on the threat to the liberty of the subject, I shall take steps to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Rockets (U.S.S.R. Achievements)

.Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, what recent reports he has received from the Scientific Attaché at Her Majesty's Embassy in Moscow regarding the latest Russian achievements in the sphere of rocket projection.

Sir D. Eccles: Rocket propulsion is generally regarded as a military subject and lies outside the field of the Scientific Attaché.

Dr. Johnson: As my noble Friend the Minister of Science must receive infor-

mation of some kind which is of interest both to himself and to us all, would my right hon. Friend none the less consider issuing an authoritative statement from time to time assessing Russian performance with rockets? Many people would have considered that of particular value at the time of the U2 incident in giving us all some guidance in assessing both the truth of the incident and the Russian performance at the time.

Sir D. Eccles: I will inform my noble Friend of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Electronic Equipment Orders (Scotland)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the orders placed by Government Departments for electronic equipment, currently, goes to firms in Scotland; whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by Scottish companies in this matter; and whether he will take immediate steps to increase the Scottish proportion.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): The form in which records are kept does not make this information readily available. I understand that a few Scottish firms have complained about Scotland's share of orders, but in the placing of Government contracts preference is given to development districts, and we shall continue to operate these arrangements.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Economic Secretary look at this again, as I understand that the manufacturers of this equipment in Scotland have complained to the Department about the lack of orders being given to Scottish firms? Will he, at least, see that more work of this nature from the nationalised industries goes to Scotland?

Mr. Barber: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are two schemes. There is what is known as the general preference scheme, and there is the special preference scheme. I will not weary the House with the details of the schemes now, but a great deal is done for these development areas. If the hon. Member has any specific complaint, I should be very happy to look into it.

Unemployment, Scotland

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. HECTOR HUGHES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that unemployment in Scotland has risen during the past few weeks with consequent urgency in the need to attract new industries; and what special financial facilities he therefore plans to rectify these industrial and employment disabilities.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that a Question should remain on the Order Paper unasked, when it is demonstrably untrue?

Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Member puts down a Question, he takes responsibility for the fact.

Sir T. Moore: Then the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) should be here to ask it.

Mr. Speaker: That is not for me.

British Museum

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether as a result of the talks that have taken place at No. 10 Downing Street with the Archbishop of Canterbury, as Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum, the Lord Chancellor, an ex-officio Trustee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Works, he will announce the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to assisting the requirements of the British Museum for rebuilding and expansion.

Mr. Barber: The policy of Her Majesty's Government will continue to be to meet the agreed needs of the British Museum as rapidly as resources permit.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the Economic Secretary realise that that reply will be regarded as very disappointing? Is he not aware that there is urgent need for the Trustees of the British Museum to be able to commence operations in connection with the proposed National Library on the site that has been designated for that purpose? Can we now have an assurance that those responsible, including the Minister of Works, will take the necessary steps to acquire the site in order that this much-needed expansion can begin?

Mr. Barber: As a result of the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his Question, it is proposed that discussions should take place between the Trustees and Government representatives covering, among other things, the timing of the various building and reconstruction works to which he refers.

Go-Karts (Tax)

Mr. Hilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of Purchase Tax charged on the wholesale value of go-karts used for racing purposes in this country.

Mr. Barber: Go-karts are taxable at 50 per cent. of their wholesale value.

Mr. Hilton: Is it not the fact that other articles of sports equipment, such as tennis racquets, hockey sticks, football gear and the like are not subject to the tax? As go-kart racing is comparatively new and mainly a working-man's sport, will he consider reducing or removing Purchase Tax from go-karts to bring them into line with other sporting articles? Will he also bear in mind that the manufacture of these go-karts is a most useful light industry and would be encouraged if Purchase Tax were removed?

Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a Question on this subject, asked of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) on 10th May. My right hon. Friend said in his Answer that he did not feel able to recommend a reduction in the rate of tax on go-karts, and I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.

Mr. Woodnutt: Would my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider this matter again? Is he aware that this is a very new industry in this country and that a 50 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax makes it extremely difficult for it to become established? Is he further aware that this industry is starting in areas of high unemployment, that there is a large potential export market, and that this high rate of Purchase Tax is reducing home sales, reducing production, and making it very difficult to reduce manufacturing costs in order to compete with the longer-developed American market?

Mr. Barber: I will certainly convey my hon. Friend's observations to the Chancellor, but I must repeat that only a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the matter and to express views on it.

Business Firms (Payments to Political Parties)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent payments made by firms to political parties are now regarded by the Inland Revenue as a legitimate business expense for tax purposes.

Mr. Barber: Payments to political parties are not regarded as a deductible expense.

House Building

Mr. Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to spend a smaller proportion of the country's financial resources on building council houses this year compared with last year and with 1954, respectively; and what methods he proposes to use to achieve this purpose.

Mr. Barber: The number of local authority houses completed in 1960 should be appreciably higher than in 1959. The fall in local authority house building since 1954 reflects the Government's successes in overcoming the housing need in many areas away from the big cities, and also in encouraging house ownership.
The level of local authority house building is taken into account in considering the total of all public sector capital investment.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not the fact that this proportion was deliberately halved between 1954 and last year, that the proportion this year will be very much the same, and that this results directly from the Government's policy of increasing interest rates and removing most types of housing subsidy? Does not the hon. Gentleman's reply, which shows a manifest ignorance of the situation, also show that the Government are not putting first things first?

Mr. Barber: Perhaps I may first take up the hon. Gentleman's remark about

ignorance of the situation. He refers in his Question to the Government spending on local authority housing a smaller proportion of our financial resources this year as compared with last year. The fact is that the estimated expenditure on local authority house building will be greater this year than last year; that the proportion of the total public sector investment to be spent on local authority house building will be greater this year than last year, and that the estimated number of completions will be greater this year than last year.
As to the hon. Gentleman's reference to 1954, I am sure he would be the first to admit that he has taken the best year since the Conservatives came into office —235,000 completions of local authority houses in 1954—and that, I think, one can fairly compare with the best year under a Labour Government—1948 —when the number was only 190,000.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member himself, for his standard of reference, chose the worst of many years, namely, 1958? Is it not a fact that in 1958 the number of council houses was lower than at any time for very many years, lower than under the Labour Government?

Mr. Barber: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was referring to the three years mentioned in the Question.

Royal Commission on Historical Monuments

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary to the Treasury Whether, in view of the unsatisfactory progress made by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) in recent years, he will recommend bringing the work of the Commission to an end and transferring its functions to the Ministry of Works.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. I cannot yet add to the statement which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made during the debate on the Adjournment on 24th May.

Mr. Fletcher: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the operations of this Royal Commission have been very disappointing and very slow? It was


appointed over 50 years ago. As a permanent Royal Commission is becoming an anachronism and as this one has outlived its usefulness, would it not be much better if it were merged with the National Buildings Record and the Ancient Monuments Department of the Ministry of Works?

Mr. Barber: Only last week my hon. Friend the Finanical Secretary explained that his predecessor initiated some months ago an inquiry to examine all these questions and that as soon as the result is available he will himself take the chair at a meeting to decide what action is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Committee on Consumer Protection (Evidence)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade which organisations have now submitted written evidence to the Committee on Consumer Protection.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): As the Answer contains a long list of names, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Parliamentary Secretary reconsider the possibility of publishing this evidence at a suitable time, preferably sooner rather than later?

Mr. Rodgers: It is up to the Committee to decide whether to publish the evidence. Up to date, it has taken no objection to organisations publishing their own evidence if they like.

Mr. Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman give an indication when the Committee is likely to report? Is there any truth in the rumours that it will be on the job for another two years?

Mr. Rodgers: It is certainly a very long and complicated job. I should not expect the report within a year or two.

Following is the information:
I am informed that written evidence has now been submitted by the following organisations in addition to those of which I advised the hon. Member for Swindon on 15th February.

Advertising Inquiry Committee.
Apparel and Fashion Industry's Association. 

Association of British Chemical Manufacturers.
Association of Folding Furniture Makers. Association of Scientific Workers.
Association of Toy and Fancy Goods Factors.
British Association of the Hard of Hearing. British Federation of Textiles Smallwares Manufacturers.
British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations.
British Jewellers' Association.
British Man-Made Fibres Federation.
British Pressure Cooker Manufacturers Association.
British Safety Council.
British Toy Manufacturers Association.
British Wool Marketing Board.
Butter Information Council.
Champagne Association.
Consumers' Association.
Cotton and Rayon Merchants Association.
Council of Industrial Design.
County Councils Association.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
Electricity Council.
Federation of British Carpet Manufacturers.
 Fire Extinguisher Trades Association. Fire Offices Committee.
Footwear Distributors Federation.
Furnishing Fabric Federation.
Gas Council.
Home Office.
Incorporated Federated Association of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland.
Independent Television Companies Association.
Institute of British Launderers.
Institute of Weights and Measures Administration.
International Wool Secretariat.
Manchester Chamber of Commerce Testing House and Laboratory.
Margarine Manufacturers' Association.
 Market Research Society.
Ministry of Health.
Ministry of Power.
National Dairymen's Association.
National Farmers' Union.
National Federation of Dyers and Cleaners. National Federation of Engineers' Tool Manufacturers.
National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades.
National Hosiery Manufacturers' Federation.
National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations (Women's National Advisory Committee).
Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association.
Portable Electric Tool Manufacturers' Association.
Proprietary Association of Great Britain.
Rhyl and District Trades Council.
Richmond and Barnes Joint Home Safety Committee.
Textile Institute.
Torquay Trades Council.
Women's Co-operative Guild.
Wool Textile Delegation.
Working Men's Club and Institute Union.

World Trade Fair, New York

Commander Courtney: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the extent to which British industry participated with Government support in the fourth World Trade Fair held in New York in May, 1960; and if the British Government was officially represented at this fair.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I understand that only one United Kingdom firm participated in this trade fair. There was no Government support and no official exhibit.

Commander Courtney: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent our principal competitors were represented at this fair?

Mr. Rodgers: Sixteen countries had official stands, but British businesses did not show any great interest in the fair. In 1960 only one firm took a stand. Five agents exhibited goods of United Kingdom principals. That is why we decided to concentrate on the British Trade Fair in June, where the Board of Trade is staging an official display.

Industrial Development, Hartlepools (Land)

Commander Kerans: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many acres of land are immediately available in West Hartlepool and Hartlepool, respectively, for industrial development.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Thirty-eight acres of land are available for immediate industrial development on the Board of Trade's Hartlepools Estate, 24 in West Hartlepool and 14 in Hartlepool, My right hon. Friend understands that, in addition, there are several privately or municipally owned industrial sites, totalling 28 acres in West Hartlepool and 7½ acres in Hartlepool, but that not all of these are available for immediate development.

Commander Kerans: Will my hon. Friend explain why his regional controller, in a tour from Jarrow to The Hartlepools, said that he could find only 20 acres immediately available for industrial development and in The Hartlepools only 8 acres suitable for building?

Mr. Rodgers: The regional controller said that he was looking for one site of 20 acres which was immediately available and that no such site existed in the area. That, I understand, is the position. The largest site on the Board's Hartlepools estate is 8 acres. One of the other sites mentioned is about 13 acres.

Mr. Chetwynd: While it may be true that no site of that size exists in the development district, is it not also true that people living on the perimeter could easily travel from the development district into this area where I am sure sites are available?

Mr. Rodgers: To the south of West Hartlepool there is a site of 106 acres. Industrialists have looked at this and have not found it attractive.

Mr. Harold Davies: Do the Government intend in the near future doing something about this problem of industrialists looking for land? The extortionate prices asked are a social scab on the system. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to do something to control the prices of land?

Mr. Rodgers: That is another question. Our regional controller is, however, in touch with the local planning authority about the possibility of more land being made available for industry in the boroughs of West Hartlepool and Hartlepool.

Machine-Tool Industry (Castings)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the exports of the machine-tool industry are being jeopardised by a shortage of castings; and what action he is taking to assist the industry to overcome it.

Mr. J. Rodgers: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no evidence of a general shortage of castings for the machine-tool industry.

Mr. Swingler: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that one of my constituents sent him a mass of evidence, from the Foundry Trade Journal, and so on, showing that there is a shortage of castings and that many firms are complaining about how this is jeopardising their export trade, as is the call-up of


apprentices as soon as they have completed their training? Will the hon. Member consider this matter?

Mr. Rodgers: The Newcast Foundries have sent copies of letters from four other companies complaining about delay. In the main, these companies seem to be connected with the Newcast Foundries. I have examined the correspondence, but it does not appear to have established that there is a general shortage of castings which is preventing the export of machine tools.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not clear that there is a shortage of castings which is jeopardising the production of important exports? This is due to the call-up of specially skilled men who are required for the maintenance of production. Will the hon. Gentleman look into that aspect and send an urgent message about it to the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but if any machine-tool firm is finding difficulty in obtaining supplies of castings it will be well advised to get in touch with the Iron and Steel Board and discuss its problems with that organisation.

Petrol and Oil

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now refer the distribution of petrol and lubricating oils to the Monopolies Commission for study and report.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 17th May.

Mr. Darling: Surely the Board of Trade ought to have something to say in view of the fact that the world oil situation is now very favourable to buyers and that the lack of competition in this country is preventing the motorist from having the benefits of the world situation. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nine out of ten garages are now tied to the big petrol companies? If the party opposite believes in competition, why does it not allow competition to operate in the petrol world?

Mr. Rodgers: The Monopolies Commission has three references before it.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the hon. Member's observations.

Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether petrol distribution would qualify under the legislation setting up the Monopolies Commission for an inquiry?

Mr. Rodgers: That is one of the subjects under consideration at the moment.

Mr. Lipton: How much longer will we have to wait before the Government make up their mind in this matter? Millions of £s are being extracted from the people of this country quite unjustly.

Silicon Manganese Steel

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the effect which the shortage of home-produced silicon manganese steel, used for making coil springs, is likely to have on the imports of steel and exports of products of which springs are essential components; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend understands that the Iron and Steel Board is examining, in consultation with the Coil Spring Federation and with the steel producers, the reported shortage of silicon manganese steel used for the production of coil springs, and until this examination is completed it is not possible to say whether imports of steel are likely to go up. He has no reason to think that exports of products incorporating coil springs will be adversely affected.

Mr. Darling: Those observations certainly are not borne out by the statements made by the manufacturers in Sheffield. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that one of the biggest manufacturers has said that he is going as far away as Japan in search of steel to bring to Sheffield? Does not that cause the Parliamentary Secretary any alarm? Is he not aware that this situation arises from the fact that the private steel companies will not plan ahead to meet demand but wait for demand to catch up with them?

Mr. Rodgers: As I have said, the Iron and Steel Board is conducting an examination. Through the Ministry of Power we are keeping in touch with the Board. Should a shortage of silicon manganese exist, we shall take any steps necessary in order to avoid loss of exports.

Jute

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make representations to the Government of Pakistan about the need for a continuity in the supply of raw jute to the United Kingdom jute industry.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend is sure that the Government of Pakistan and the jute trade there fully appreciate the need for continuity of supplies.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that drought in Pakistan has caused a great deal of anxiety about the continuity of supply and concern about the possibility of unemployment in this country later this year? Will he do his best to ensure that this situation does not arise in another year?

Mr. Rodgers: It is difficult to control the effects of weather, and it is not yet known to what extent last year's drought may affect the jute crop. The 1960 crop should be much better than appeared likely a few weeks ago. The Pakistan Government have set up a Jute Inquiry Commission, which has visited Dundee, as the hon. Member knows. We will certainly watch the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Nature Conservation

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent community development methods and techniques are used to popularise nature conservation projects in territories under United Kingdom administration.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): The Governments of the territories concerned are giving closer attention to the education of Africans in the need to preserve wild life, by organised visits to National Parks, publicity at local shows and through the Press and radio, and by the

establishment of local committees to advise on conservation and game management. If there are any other particular methods which the hon. Member has in mind and he will send me details of them, I shall be glad to consider the matter further.

Mr. David James: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the outstanding economic and cultural value of wild life to the East and Central African territories, what steps he is taking to secure the continual and improved conservation and development of these resources.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am glad of this opportunity to reaffirm Her Majesty's Government's concern for wild life in Africa. Wild life conservation measures are continuously under review in the East and Central African territories and in spite of financial difficulties much has been done in the last ten years to establish and consolidate National Parks and Reserves.
But more use can be made of technical knowledge in developing the wild life reserves, which contribute considerably to local food supplies as well as being of economic value to the tourist industry.
I recognise that the voluntary co-operation of the African populations is essential if conservation is to be lasting and effective, and have been glad to learn that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, in consultation with other international agencies, is exploring the possibility of a conference on conservation being convened in Africa next year.

Mr. James: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that this question is not prompted solely by sentimental considerations, but that any change in the wild life structure is inevitably followed by change in vegetation, and that large areas of Africa at present capable of supporting human life could easily be rendered incapable of so doing?

Mr. Macleod: This is not by any means only an economic question. There are many aspects of it, and all of them point to the importance of this matter. That is why I was glad to have the opportunity of making a statement on it today. and I am glad to know that this


meeting, to which I have referred, which is to be held in a week or two, has the idea of a conference in view.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that there will be a general welcome for his announcement on this subject? Can he say what participation the Government are taking in this meeting?

Mr. Macleod: Amongst the people who will be there are Dr. Worthington, who often advises me on these matters, and who has just returned from a visit to Africa. He has prepared a detailed report on his visit, and I will be able to study that and the need for further help in a few weeks' time.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: While also thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him if he is satisfied that it is generally recognised as a modern scientific truth that controlled game slaughter over a large part of Africa provides more protein to the square mile than any form of agriculture? Will he realise that this is not just sentimental and colourful, but has remarkable economic significance?

Mr. Macleod: I agree with that. I was most impressed when a deputation which I met recently on this subject proved the extraordinary contribution from the point of view of protein that this sort of scheme can make.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI

Education

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies Whether he is aware of the need for the development of increased educational facilities in Fiji; and what proposals he has for meeting it.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware that in its recent report the Burns Commission, while making certain recommendations on education, particularly in regard to agricultural and technical training, laid emphasis on the Colony's need for economic rather than social development and expressed the view that the Colony cannot at present afford facilities for a higher standard of education. The Commission's report is being studied by the Fiji Government, and I await their reactions to it.

Mr. Dugdale: Is it not the case that the increase in the educational facilities has not even kept pace with the increase in the population, the result being that the educational facilities are growing less rather than greater?

Mr. Macleod: No, I do not think that is so. The figures I have show that the total school roll in the period 1946 to 1958 increased by about 100 per cent. as against an increase of 44 per cent. in the total population. I should have thought that on that basis we were clearly keeping pace, but that does not mean to say that there is not a great deal still to be done, which is now being studied by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Agriculture

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals he has for the improvement of African agriculture in Nyasaland.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The current development plan envisages the expenditure of some £250,000 on agriculture, and £500,000 on land re-organisation. I recognise, however, that there is room for additional effort in this field, and I am at present in consultation with the Governor about the possibility of more comprehensive plans for agricultural development over the next few years, and their financial implications.

Mr. Peyton: While welcoming that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that African agriculture is of vital importance if progress is to be made in this very backward country? May I further ask him to bear in mind that, as this is a territorial subject, there is a very great responsibility on Her Majesty's Government, and whether, for purposes of comparison, he will bear in mind the great progress made in Southern Rhodesia in this field?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. I accept the importance of this subject. I always bracket African agriculture and African education as the two subjects on which it is most important to keep one's mind in the economic development of the country. I am, as I have said, studying more comprehensive plans in relation to Nyasaland.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Narcotics (Use)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the possible danger to animals in the use of crops treated with narcotics for the purpose of killing wood pigeons; and whether he will make a statement with particular reference to the experiments carried out near Newmarket in the last six months.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I am aware that there is a possible danger to animals from crops treated with narcotics. So far their use has been restricted to official experiments to ascertain whether or not narcotics can be used safely. In the experiments carried out by my officers on one farm near Newmarket, wheat treated with narcotics has been laid and some 300 wood pigeons and about fifty other harmful birds were caught. No animals have been reported as affected.

Mr. de Freitas: May I ask the Minister to be extremely careful before encouraging this practice, in view of how little we know about possible danger to wild life, not only animals but birds?

Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is so. That is why I am carrying out this very strictly controlled experiment under my own auspices on one farm.

Crop Insurance

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation on the lines of the recent Canadian Crop Insurance Act, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Lincoln.

Mr. Hare: According to the report the hon. Member has sent me, the Canadian Government may now make grants and loans toward the cost of crop insurance schemes run by Provincial Governments. Conditions in our two respective countries are very different, and the causes and extent of crop failures are not the same.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that I and anybody who has been to

Canada is well aware of that? Will he at least say that he is not against the principle of State insurance of crops on the lines of American and Canadian practice?

Mr. Hare: I would not go as far as giving the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Conditions vary so much more in this country than they do in Canada. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that it is possible for farmers to insure their crops against failure, and that insurances of this kind are taken into account at the Annual Review.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION (TALKS)

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement giving the results of his official conversation with the President of the National Farmers' Union on 25th May.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to Questions on this matter on 31st May.

Sir J. Duncan: I have read that Answer. Will not my right hon. Friend explain that the inquiries by the agricultural Ministers referred to in that Answer will go wider than the purely agricultural Ministries and will deal with imports and exports of agricultural produce? Will he also explain the position regarding Scotland and Northern Ireland, both in so far as Ministerial responsibility is concerned, and in regard to the National Farmers' Unions?

Mr. Butler: In answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. I understand that Mr. Woolley came with the full approval of the unions in Scotland and Northern Ireland. A meeting has already taken place between Mr. Woolley and the Minister of Agriculture, I understand, also with the approval of the unions concerned. It is important that my right hon. Friend concerned, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and myself in my relationship with Northern Ireland, should be in touch with these talks, and we propose to be so.
In regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, Mr. Woolley put forward certain subjects which he wishes to have discussed, and these have been accepted. I agree that it is important that the talks should be as wide as possible.

Mr. Willey: While we welcome the Prime Minister's recognition of the mistake in the White Paper on the Price Review, may I ask whether we shall have another White Paper on the Government's new agricultural policy?

Mr. Butler: The Government's agricultural policy is perpetually unfolding in a more and more satisfactory light. I cannot promise an extra White Paper, nor can I accept the insinuation in the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Hayman: Did the Prime Minister take into account the telegram sent to the Minister of Agriculture by the Cornish branch of the National Farmers' Union saying that it had lost confidence in him and his policy, and whether the Prime Minister also took into account and discussed with Mr. Woolley the fact that Lord Netherthorpe voted with the Opposition in a Division in another place?

Mr. Butler: We do follow what goes on in another place, and I believe that to be correct. I am not absolutely certain whether the message to which the hon. Gentleman refers was received, but after I have made inquiries I will inform the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the statement of the Minister of Defence on 22nd May on the question of conscription and the call-up represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I presume the hon. Member is referring to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 21st May in answer to a Press inquiry. I can certainly confirm, as stated by my right hon. Friend, that we have no plans for the continuation of National Service.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable alarm and concern, especially among young people, about the report that the defence advisers of the Government are advising them to continue National Service in some shape or form? Can he give a firm assurance that that is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I repeat what I said in my Answer, that "we have no plans for the continuation of National Service"

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SPEECH)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Minister of Defence about rockets, missiles, and the nuclear deterrent, made at the Micro-Cell Factory, Camberley, on 20th May, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it advisable for the Minister of Defence to boast about his defence arrangements when they are so inefficient? What is the purpose of boasting that a bomber can take off from the ground in under four minutes when everybody realises that in the next five minutes there will probably be action which wipes out the defences?

Mr. Butler: I cannot follow all the complication of the hon. Member's question. My right hon. Friend made a particularly forceful speech on the occasion of the opening of the factory in his constituency, and his views are endorsed and supported by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that statement contains the clear indication that there are circumstances, though undefined, in which this country would use nuclear weapons first? Does he not further realise that to say that we would use nuclear weapons first is merely a prescription for national suicide?

Mr. Butler: That matter is dealt with by Question No. 46. I think we had better wait until then.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he advanced at the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference concerning the status in the Commonwealth of a future Republic of South Africa.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
It would not be proper for me to give details of these confidential discussions. I have nothing to add to the agreed statement on this subject in the cornmuniqué issued at the end of the recent meeting.

Mr. Dugdale: While I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said and the reasons for it, is he aware that the Prime Minister of South Africa has made a statement in which he has inferred that the conference decided that a Republic of South Africa would be admitted into the Commonwealth? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no such decision was reached and, as stated in the communiqué, that the matter was to be left for the next Prime Ministers' Conference to decide in the light of events?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I can confirm that to be the case. If the hon. Member would turn to paragraph 13 of the communiqué, he would see that it runs as follows:
In the event of South Africa deciding to become a republic and if the desire was subsequently expressed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, the meeting suggested that the South African Government should then ask for the consent of the other Commonwealth Governments either at a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers or if this were not practicable by correspondence

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in that case the decision of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers must be unanimous?

Mr. Butler: I cannot confirm or deny that. What I can say is that the decision cannot be taken until the suggested procedure has been gone through.

Mr. Gaitskell: In the event of South Africa becoming a republic, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that before she can be admitted to the Commonwealth in her new capacity, every other member of the Commonwealth must be agreeable?

Mr. Butler: I would not like to give an inaccurate answer; therefore, I should not like to go further than I have done. I should, however, like to reserve the absolute liberty of all members of the Commonwealth to state their opinion

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES AIR BASES, UNITED KINGDOM (ALERT)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Prime Minister what information was given to him by President Eisenhower of the American intention to send a combat readiness alert to its forces in the United Kingdom on the eve of the Summit Conference; how many American planes were sent into the air from bases in this country; and how many British planes were similarly alerted.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Mi nister whether he will seek an assurance from President Eisenhower that no combat readiness alert or other order preliminary to belligerent action will be given to the United States forces stationed in this country without the prior approval of the British Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
As has often been explained to the House, the use in emergency of bases in this country by United States forces will be subject to joint decision by the United Kingdom and United States Governments. As I said on 30th May in answer to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), the recent alert was a routine test of the efficiency of United States communications, and there was accordingly no need for consultation between the President and my right hon. Friend. I understand that no extra flying resulted from this test. The Royal Air Force did not take part or carry out any similar exercise of its own at the time.
We see no reason for altering the terms of the agreement reached with the United States Government by the noble Lord, Lord Attlee, and confirmed by subsequent Prime Ministers.

Mrs. Hart: While accepting that the incident was described by the American Government as a normal alert, does the Home Secretary not agree that its timing immediately before the Summit Conference was a highly provocative action


and likely to do untold damage to the progress of international relations? Does he not agree that, in these circumstances, the failure at least to notify the Prime Minister of this country that such an alert was to take place was appalling and shocking? Will he take note of the desire of many Members of this House that, in future, information should be given to the Prime Minister of Britain when bases in this country are involved in an act of this kind, so that the objections of the British Government may be made known to the Americans?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is that that is a matter of judgment. It is a matter upon which I do not wish to comment further. In answer to the latter part of her question, I do not think we should alter the arrangement as it exists. I have said that any use of the bases in emergency is a matter for joint decision, but I do not think that we can interfere with what I have described as a routine test of the efficiency of the United States communications, nor do I expect or wish that the United States Government or authorities should interfere with any such arrangements which might be made by the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Warbey: If these tests are routine, does not that imply that they may be a frequent occurrence? Has it occurred to the Government that, whatever happened on this occasion, on future occasions the American Air Force might set off in the direction of the Soviet frontiers loaded, possibly, with hydrogen bombs and that this could lead to all kinds of dangerous consequences? Do the Government seriously mean that they do not know and they do not care when this kind of thing happens and that they have no means whatever of preventing it from taking place?

Mr. Butler: Of course, we care fundamentally, and so did the Government of right hon. and hon. Members opposite care fundamentally when they made the initial agreement, which was that no use of these bases in an emergency should be made without a joint decision of the two Governments. We cannot let this govern ordinary routine practice, exercises or tests, and we would not expect reciprocity in that sense.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Home Secretary aware that while we are not discussing this afternoon the question of the original agreement, some of us are rather concerned about the way in which it is implemented in connection with these alerts? How frequently do they take place? Do they sometimes involve aircraft leaving the ground with bombs? If this was merely a routine alert, why was so much publicity given to it just at that moment?

Mr. Butler: As I said on the question of the timing and the occasion of the alert, it is a matter for judgment whether the resulting situation gave confidence or lack of confidence. I cannot add anything to my original answer, because I cannot give the internal arrangements of the United States Air Force in relation to tests of this nature of the efficiency of their forces

Mr. Gaitskell: What we are concerned with is whether Her Majesty's Government are consulted on these occasions or whether, if they are not consulted, they should not make some kind of protest about it. While we recognise that it may be necessary to have alerts from time to time, the right hon. Gentleman would help the House if he could be a little more frank about exactly what takes place. Would it not be a good plan that, in any event, if aircraft leave the ground Her Majesty's Government should first be consulted in the event of an alert of this sort? In addition, if publicity is to be given, surely they should be consulted beforehand.

Mr. Butler: I think it would be an extension of the agreement which was never foreseen that there should be prior consultation before tactical exercises of this sort, particularly as on this occasion no extra flying was involved. On the question of carrying hydrogen bombs, I cannot add to the many answers which have been given by my right hon. Friend and myself on this subject. It is a very serious one on which there has been no change at all.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman said that this alert was a routine test. When did he discover that? Did he know it was a routine test before it took place or after it took place?

Mr. Butler: I said in my original Answer that there was no prior consultation.

Mrs. Hart: Would the Home Secretary not agree that when circumstances are such as they were on the occasion of this alert, the alert in itself could constitute an emergency? Would he, therefore, convey to his right hon. Gentleman the desire of some of us that negotiations on this agreement should be reopened, in particular at least concerning the possibility of consultation about alerts when international negotiation is under way?

Mr. Butler: The very fact that this serious interchange is taking place on the Floor of the House of Commons will not have escaped, I expect, the attention of the Administration chiefly concerned, and if this is the case perhaps some good will have been done.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the first week after the Whitsun Recess?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The business for the first week after the Whitsun Recess will be as follows:

MONDAY, 20TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Building Societies Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme.

TUESDAY, 21ST JUNE, and WEDNESDAY, 22ND JUNE—Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

THURSDAY, 23RD JUNE—Report and Third Reading of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill.

FRIDAY, 24TH JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

The proposed business on Monday, 27th June, will be Supply [16th allotted Day]: Committee. A debate on the proposed transfer of Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited to private ownership.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Minister of Transport yesterday referred to the non-co-operation of one local authority in refusing to put up any signs of his Department over the Whitsun holiday? As many Members will be travelling along that road and we want to get back in one piece, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the offending authority is the County Council of the North Riding of Yorkshire?

Mr. Butler: In answer to business questions, I should have to reserve the position, and consult my right hon. Friend. I will certainly do so in the light of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask the Leader of the House, although time is very short, whether any opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the case of Mrs. Hazel Anna Wolf, who is to be deported to this country from the United States, who has not lived here for a very long time and has no relatives or money here, and who will have to be kept out of public funds here? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether something is being done by the Government to try to dissuade the United States in this matter?

Mr. Butler: I am informed that representations are being made by Her Majesty's Ambassador. In any case, I will undertake to look into the matter myself.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in another similar case representations were, as promised, made by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington, but so great is our influence with the United States authorities that the result was completely negative? If the deportation is to take place, is it not time the House did have an opportunity of discussing these matters?

Mr. Butler: I do not see an easy opportunity of discussing them, but I have undertaken to give this matter immediate personal consideration, which I will do in the light of the questions which have been put.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Leader of the House find time for a general debate on the recommendations of the Simonds Committee on the Powers of Subpoena


of Disciplinary Tribunals and the general question of the production of evidence taken by police officers? Will he bear in mind that it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity of a general debate on that Report before considering any Amendments which may be made in another place to a certain Bill which is now under consideration?

Mr. Butler: If Amendments are made in the sense of the answer I gave on the Government's acceptance of the Simonds Report, the House will have an opportunity of considering those Amendments when they come from another place. We have many Supply Days still to fit in at this time of the year, and I cannot give any easy undertaking, but in saying that I do not wish to minimise the importance of this Report.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is really a matter of Government responsibility and, therefore, for Government time, especially as it seems that the Government are at the point of changing their policy in this matter, and that, therefore, it is important that we should debate the general question and not only amendments which may obscure the general question and make it difficult to raise?

Mr. Butler: There are really two questions, the question of the powers of subpoena and the bodies to which they are given, and the question of the use of evidence, and, therefore, there is certainly a case for an interesting discussion, but all I can do at this stage is to register the right hon. Gentleman's point of view.

Mr. Short: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said a few weeks ago, that the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955 (Amendment) Bill was of great merit, and as on another occasion he recognised that there were very important humanitarian principles involved, would he say when we are to have time for the Second Reading of that very important Measure?

Mr. Butler: I am not in a position to do so.

Mr. Ginsburg: In considering whether the Government will have a debate on the Simonds Committee's Report, will

the right hon. Gentleman recall his own words of 16th December, when he implied that, before proceeding with the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill, the House would have an opportunity of considering what was involved in the Simonds Committee's Report?

Mr. Butler: As I say, there are two aspects to this question. On the aspect of restoring powers which were taken out of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill, the House should have an opportunity, if another place decides to restore those original powers in conformity with the Simonds Committee's decision, to consider it when it comes back here. I do not think I can go further on that. On the other question, it is a matter of finding time, which I think will be difficult, but I have undertaken to listen to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Lipton: Have the Government come to any decision yet about the right of these professional bodies to subpoena police?

Mr. Butler: The Simonds Committee made it quite clear that if these bodies were set up they should not be deprived of any such powers, and that, in general, we have accepted.

CYPRUS (NEGOTIATIONS)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am glad to have an opportunity of making a short statement on the Cyprus negotiations before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess. The Government recognise that the House has been very forbearing in not seeking to press us in this matter and are most grateful.
The House will have seen Press reports according to which Archbishop Makarios considers that the remaining issues could be quickly settled. I am sure that this is right, and I hope, therefore, that the Archbishop will soon see his way to resume discussions with my hon. Friend. By the Archbishop's wish, there have been no formal meetings between the leaders of the delegations for some little time. I feel confident that the points which are still causing difficulty can in practice be resolved by discussion.
The Archbishop has, in his public statement, made known the points of difference. The House will not expect me to say now what we shall say to the Cypriot leaders if, as I hope, confidential negotiations are very shortly resumed. I can say that I do not think there is much between us on the delimitation of the boundaries of the sovereign base areas. We have done our utmost to meet Cypriot wishes on Cypriot participation in the administration of those areas, within the framework of British sovereignty. It is common ground that the areas to be retained have to serve a military purpose; military considerations must, therefore, be given full weight, as regards both the boundaries and the administration.
On the long-term view of the base areas, it is difficult to foresee the circumstances in which we might want to relinquish them. This is a hypothetical situation to which many factors might apply. At present we are seeking a settlement, in which the retention of base areas under British sovereignty is one of the principal elements. But we recognise that the Cypriots have an interest in this matter and we shall be glad to discuss it with them.
The other main outstanding question is financial aid. On this, our offer of £10 million over five years is, I think, generous.
We have approached these negotiations throughout in a spirit of accommodation and good will. We are sure that if the outstanding questions are tackled together in that same spirit an agreement can very soon be reached, and for our part we are very anxious to see such agreement.

Mr. Driberg: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, is there any indication that recent events in Turkey have had any effect on the attitude of the Turkish Cypriot minority? Secondly, if the Archbishop's statement of the relatively minor differences on the points still at issue is correct, as quoted in the Press yesterday, is it really not possible, as the right hon. Gentleman indeed says he hopes it is, to reach agreement very soon indeed? Cannot the Government let the Archbishop have that letter about this remote hypothetical future situation?

Mr. Macleod: On the first point, I do not think that recent events in Turkey have had any effect on the position. On the second point, it is true that the question of cession, which is considerably hypothetical, seems the main point at the moment and I believe, and I think that I agree with the hon. Member, that this is in a way, though it may seem the most important, the least of the difficulties and might well be the one which, if resolved, will be the lead into settling the others. We are trying to find the right sort of formula, in conjunction with the other parties to the London Agreement, which will achieve that.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to rumours that Her Majesty's Government have entered into financial commitments recently for expenditure on this base, or are about to enter into further financial commitments at a time when these negotiations are far from being concluded? Can we have an assurance that no commitments are being entered into which may be entirely wasted if negotiations break down?

Mr. Macleod: I should not like to go as far as my right hon. Friend's suggestion. Naturally one is reluctant to enter into financial negotiations unless one can see a clear and settled future, and it would certainly help very much if that could be achieved. But so much depends on this matter and so much is involved in the financial matters to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention that I believe that the recent announcement that the work will be continued has been widely welcomed.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not a fact that there are many people who will feel that this is one of the points which it is feasible for the Cypriots to make about the future of the base areas, were we ever to have to give them up? Can the right hon. Gentleman throw any light on this? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is that the Government's position is that they are not averse to giving them up to a Cypriot Government, if they give them up. Is the position that the Government feel that they must agree to this with other parties to the negotiations before they give any such undertaking?

Mr. Macleod: The exact position is that I believe that a formula can be found in this matter, and we are now seeking to find such a formula in conjunction with Greece and Turkey, who were parties to the London Agreement.

Mr. W. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he could get and sign agreement on this letter concerning the return of the base areas to the Cypriot people and not to any outside Power, the rest of his problems would soon be settled?

Mr. Macleod: All I can say is that I hope that my hon. Friend is right. We have often seen our hopes go up and down like a yo-yo in the last few weeks in these discussions, and it has seemed that matters have been solved only for others to be raised, but I agree with my hon. Friend that this is the most helpful matter on which to concentrate now.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to those who try to follow the reports in the Press the present arguments really seem more suitable to medieval philosophers than to politicians? Is he aware that we are asking the Government that they should come to a conclusion on these very tiny matters? Am I not right in assuming that one of the major matters in dispute, apart from the final destination of the bases, is over an area of 600 square yards? If my arithmetic is right, that is about the size of a tennis court. Surely we are not going to argue over a thing like that?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member says that he would like us to come to a conclusion. So would I, but it takes two to come to a conclusion in these sorts of matters. Moving away from future concession to the size of the base, I said in my statement
…I do not think that there is much between us on the delimitation of the boundaries of the sovereign base areas
Indeed, the Archbishop said that in his statement. I do not believe that the two sides on that issue are any distance apart at all.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that in many negotiations with Cypriots just as agreement is about to be concluded some new factor is brought in by them? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that we do not intend to surrender in any way British sovereignty over the base for

what may be, after all, only a temporary agreement with the Cypriots?

Mr. Macleod: There has been no change in relation to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the sovereignty position in the base areas.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of us have quite a different view about the importance of sovereignty as applied to this base from that held by the Government. Is he aware that, frankly, we think that this is a lot on nonsense and that whether or not these are sovereign areas is much less important than that we should be on good terms with the new Republic and its inhabitants?
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot say more positively that he recognises the interest of the Cypriot Republic in the future of these areas and the very reasonable apprehensions generated by the reluctance of the British Government to give a positive assurance on these matters? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the back of the Archbishop's mind there is an idea that we may be intending to install some other Power in our place in the base areas? Is it beyond the wit of man to make a statement which does not upset our sovereign rights for the time being but at the same time makes it plain that we have not the kind of sinister intentions that some people may have ground to think we have from recent negotiations?

Mr. Macleod: 1 do not think that there is any basic dispute about sovereignty, and it was common doctrine to the parties that signed the London and Zurich Agreements. On the second point, I said in my statement that, even though this may be hypothetical, naturally the Cypriots have an interest in it and it is perfectly reasonable that they should seek a form of assurance. The only matter between us is the precise wording that formulation should take.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a Cypriot in my constituency who has recently been to Cyprus told me only yesterday that the question of the hypothetical future of the base areas, if they are not required militarily, was, in the opinion of the man in the street in Cyprus, a very small point and should not be a stumbling block holding up agreement?

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL

3.48 p.m.

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF LICENSING AUTHORITY, AND RESTRICTION OF UNLICENSED FLYING.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 9, leave out "furthering" and insert:
exercising their functions under this Act in such a manner as to further".

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I do not think that anyone would disagree with the Amendment. It does not seem to make the slightest change in the Bill. If, however, anybody thinks that the wording of the Bill would be improved by the Amendment, we would not object. We do not oppose the Amendment.

Mr. William Shepherd: It often happens that if one puts in a few words that are not necessary one ends by putting in a lot more unnecessary words.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5.—(REGULATIONS.)

Lords Amendment In page 6, line 40, at end insert—
() for the making of representations to the Minister by the Government of the Isle of Man or by the States of Jersey or Guernsey as respects any such decision of the Board as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, and for applying in relation to those

representations, with such modifications as the Minister thinks fit, any provision relating to appeals contained in this Act or in any regulations made thereunder;

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to meet certain views expressed to my right hon. Friend on behalf of the authorities in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The Government of the Isle of Man, and the States of Jersey and Guernsey, have the necessary powers, as sovereign authorities, to overate their own system for licensing civil aviation if they wish, but by agreement the existing arrangements for regulating civil aviation have been applied to these Islands by Order in Council. It is now proposed to extend the new system by Order in Council to these Islands.
In the course of our discussions with the Island authorities about the application of the new system there has been general agreement on the form of consultation that ought to take place with the Board. Where, however, the views of the Island authorities are not upheld by the Board, I think the House will agree that it would not be appropriate for these sovereign authorities to have to appear as appellants in precisely the same way as ordinary appellants—for example, a disappointed applicant for a licence.
The Amendment ensures that their representations can be dealt with without their having to go through the ordinary formalities of making an appeal. In practice the Minister will deal with their representations in exactly the same way as if there had been an appeal, but it seemed to my right hon. Friend reasonable to accede to the views of the Island authorities on these matters of procedure.

Mr. John Rankin: One thing that astonishes me is that during the Second Reading debate, and also during the Committee stage, the Government Front Bench, with all the advice and aid that it had—and I presume still has—passed over what appears to be a fairly important matter.
I do not object to the Amendment which has come from another place. I suppose that is one justification for its


continued existence. It keeps a watchful eye on the Government Front Bench. During the discussions in Committee, we were accused of prolonging—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is confined strictly to the proposition before the House. We cannot discuss the constitutional value of the House of Lords on this Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: I was merely seeking to make the point that it might be said that the Opposition did not fulfil its duties properly when it allowed these things to pass, but we do not have the help and guidance that the Government have, and it is perhaps as well that another place keeps a watchful eye on what happens.

Mr. George Chetwynd: We do not disagree with the object of the Amendment. I only ask why it was not noticed before so that we could have dealt with it in our own way in this Chamber?

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 41, leave out from "payment" to end of line 46 and insert:
to the Board in connection with air service licences or applications relating thereto of such fees determined in such manner as the regulations may with the approval of the Treasury provide;

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that it has been accepted from the outset that the fees payable in respect of licences will cover the cost of the Board. The Amendment has been introduced to provide greater flexibility in the manner in which fees may be determined. As originally drafted, there was no provision, for example, for any fees for transitional licences or for annual fees and it is felt that we should have the Bill in a sufficiently wide form to enable the case to be brought in the most equitable fashion. There are, of course, to be discussions about the fairest way in which fees can be levied, and in any event the regulations will be laid in draft.

Mr. Rankin: I presume that we are carrying out this procedure today because to some extent we failed in our duty during the Committee stage of the Bill. The Government mast bear the respon-

sibility for that, and hon. Members opposite ought not to make dissatisfied noises when I seek to deal with Amendments that have come from another place.
I hope that we on this side of the House will not commit ourselves on the Amendment for the simple reason, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that we will not know the implications of this until we see the regulations. While it may possibly be that more flexibility will be brought in, I suggest that we await the regulations before we say anything further about the Amendment.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The regulations cannot be made until the Bill has been passed, because the regulations will be made under the Bill.

Mr. Strauss: We appreciate that that is the case. It is still rather puzzling why the original words did not cover all that the Government required. The Parliamentary Secretary said that they did not cover transitional or annual licences. I assume that the Government receive advice from legal people, which is not available to us. To the layman it appears that the original words are all-inclusive because they are on the question of granting licences. If the Government assure us that that is not so, and that the Amendment is necessary to tighten up the thing, we have no objection to it, but it still rather puzzles us.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 7, at end insert:
() as to the liability of any of the persons heard by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section at any meeting of the Board in respect of costs or expenses incurred in connection with that hearing;

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
There is already provision in the Bill in respect of costs on appeal. On reconsideration of the position of costs it seemed right to enable regulations to be made to cover the possibility of awarding costs on original hearings. It might be that normally no order for costs would be made, but I think the House will agree that there might be cases when the need would arise, for example, in


connection with applications to the Board for another operator's licence to be varied, revoked, or suspended. That might put a defendant in the position of incurring considerable costs with no remedy against a frivolous action.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6.—(ENFORCEMENT OF LICENSING PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 15, leave out any "and insert "all such".

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment is designed to remove a minor drafting ambiguity, and really must be considered with the purely consequential Amendment to line 16. The intention of the Clause is to provide that the information and documents to be furnished will be those specified in the regulations. The technical point has been made in another place that the subsection could be read as meaning that it was the journey or proposed journey which had to be specified in the requirement, and not the information or documents. It is not the journey that needs to be specified in the requirements, but that is not made clear by the present wording. It would be perfectly all right to ask for information and documents, and to ask what journeys were made.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I am not impressed by the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary has just made. This is one of those profound alterations which demand very close scrutiny. The Clause contained the word "any", and the Lords, after due and grave consideration, have decided that instead of that word we should have the two words "all such". I want to read the Clause as it stands in order to put the word "any" and the words "all such" in their proper perspective. The subsection reads:
For the purpose of securing compliance with the requirements of section one of this Act, the Minister or anyone acting under his authority may require any person who, in the United Kingdom, whether by providing an aircraft or negotiating a contract or otherwise howsoever, makes available, or offers, facilities for travel or the consignment of goods upon any journey by air, and any servant or agent of any such person, and any person who is the

holder of an aerodrome licence, to provide the Minister with any information…
That is only part of the subsection.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Read it all.

Mr. Rankin: I cannot read it all at the moment. I can deal only with that part which is pertinent to the suggested Amendment and which comes with the purview of my argument.
The Lords suggest that instead of "any" we should insert "all such". If we take out the word "any" we are limiting the evidence or information that would be available. We are leaving it to the individual concerned to provide all such information as he may determine is necessary. That is wrong.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member is not correct in saying that the information to be provided is such information as the operator may think is necessary. If he will read it carefully, he will see that the words are
all such information…which may be specified in the requirement
The requirement is made by the Minister or anybody acting under his authority, as the hon. Member will see in the second and third lines of the subsection.

Mr. Rankin: Even accepting that interpretation, I suggest that it is merely an afterthought, because when the Bill went through Committee and was subjected to the careful scrutiny of the Opposition, not even when the Minister helped us in the interpretation did he see any necessity to substitute "all such" for any". However, if he now confirms that no limitation is imposed by the Amendment I cannot press the matter any further. It still appears to me that the change is not worth making.

Mr. Strauss: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). I do not agree with him that the change in any way limits the power of the Minister to ask for documents, but I cannot see what difference it makes. The Parliamentary Secretary did not convince me, but if this Amendment pleases the Government or their legal advisers, we have no objection.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment made: In page 8, line 16, leave out "which" and insert"as".

Orders of the Day — PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 7.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 10, at end insert:
() Any reference in this Act to the particulars required by subsection (5) of section two thereof shall be construed as including a reference to the particulars required by that subsection as modified by the provisions of the Schedule to this Act, or by those provisions together with any provisions of an order made under that section which are applicable to the payment in question

4.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the other Amendments are complementary, and their combined purpose and effect is to carry out an undertaking given on Report by my right hon. Friend to try to find a form of words to apply the provisions of the Schedule to payments made under Clause 4, which deals with emergency payments by way of money order or postal order in the event of the employee being away for some reason.
It might assist hon. Members if I reminded them what my right hon. Friend said on Report. He said:
It would be reasonable that where an employer is using a system which fits in with the Schedule…it should be in order for him when making a payment under Clause 4 to make the normal pay statement which would be made for the week—that is the logical way of dealing with it—and he should not interrupt the rhythm of the process to produce anything more. On the other hand, if the employer is not using a system which is acceptable under the schedule, he should provide a full statement if he is taking advantage of the provisions of Clause 4. If my hon. Friend"—
that is, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) —
is willing to accept my assurance, we will endeavour to find a form of words—I think we have one—which we could put down in another place, so that when Clause 4 is used that would be the position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 1385.]
This and the following Amendments are the form of words my right hon. Friend has found. The substantive Amendment is the one in page 11, line

5, leave out from "Where" to "a" in line 6. All this does is to remove from the operation of the Schedule the restriction imposed by the words to be left out. Those words restrict the application of the provisions of the Schedule to payments of wages made in pursuance of a request made under Clause 1. It is the purpose of the Amendment to enable the Schedule to apply to payments made under Clause 4.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: When the new Schedule was moved on behalf of the Government on Report, it was welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House, and it seems logical that the Amendments now proposed should flow from it. We are jealous of the right of every workman to get complete information about any deductions made from his wages, and the new Schedule seems to be reasonable in this respect. There seems to be no reason why these provisions should not apply to payments made under Clause 4 as well as to those made under Clause I. There is no reason why there should be a more onerous obligation upon an employer in respect of these emergency payments as compared with payments made under the Bill generally.
As I understand the position, if an employer is making payments in accordance with the Schedule and then the workman concerned is away from his normal pay station, either because he is sick or because his work takes him away, and the employer sends him his wages by postal order or money order, he now need send only a statement giving the aggregate deductions, having previously made a complete statement of these deductions to the employee. That seems reasonable. If not, if the emergency payment is made suddenly, without the other provisions of the Bill being complied with, the employer will have to send a complete statement. That is also reasonable.
Without the Amendment a slight extra duty would be imposed on the employer if he were making payments under Clause 4 which might discourage him from making those payments, and it seems to us that payments made under Clause 4 are a useful part of the Bill. It is convenient to the workman to get his wages


in this way. In fact, we suspect that this already happens in many cases, although, strictly speaking, it is illegal. The Bill will legalise payments of this kind, and it would be foolish if we did not extend the provisions of the new Schedule to those sorts of payments.

Question put and agreed to

Schedule

Lords Amendments made: In page 11, line 5, leave out from "Where" to "a" in line 6.

In line 6, after "wages" insert "or a part of wages".

In line 9, leave out "in connection with that payment" and insert:
at or before the time when that payment is made

In line 11, leave out from "person" to "and" in line 12.

In page 12, line 40, leave out from "in" to second "as" in line 46, and insert:
Part I of this Schedule to the requirements of paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of subsection (5) of section two of this Act shall be construed as including a reference to the requirements of that paragraph as modified by Part II of this Schedule or by the last preceding paragraph

Orders of the Day — CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order. I do not know whether I am right in anticipating that you are not going to call my Motion to recommit the Bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad of the opportunity the hon. Member has given me, because I have reached the conclusion that I am unable to call it.

Mr. Ross: I should be the last person to question the wisdom of your decision, Mr. Speaker, but I am the first person to draw upon the sources of your wisdom and Parliamentary experience to ask you if you can help me. This is the last opportunity we shall have of amending the Bill. The Amendment upon which I sought Recommital arises out of the Amendment which the Government made in Committee, so that we had no chance of making this Amendment in Committee. In drafting my Amendment I had considerable help from the Government draftsmen.
If you will look at the substance of my Amendment, you will see that it is of such a nature that it cannot be dealt with in another place, being privileged. Can you give me some advice to rescue me from the consequences of that fact? The Amendment which the Government put on the Order Paper, and which was accepted by the Committee, will be rendered ineffective unless the power contained in my Amendment is put into the Bill. I took the natural precaution of finding out whether my Amendment would be acceptable to the Government and I understood that it would be. Can you give me your advice about how further we can proceed?

Mr. Speaker: My difficulty is that the fact that the hon. Member's Amendment is acceptable to the Government does not assist me in my duty towards the House and, strictly in that sense, that is irrelevant. The only hope I can give the hon. Member is that in the distressing circumstances which he has mentioned, the House will be willing to waive Privilege in order that the matter can be dealt with in another place.

New Clause.—(DUTY OF LICENCE HOLDER TO SURRENDER LICENCE FOR ALTERATION.)

(1) A local authority who have issued a site licence may at any time require the holder to deliver it up so as to enable them to enter in it any alteration of the conditions or other terms of the licence made in pursuance of the provisions of Part I of this Act.

(2) If the holder of a site licence fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement duly made under this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new Clause is to make sure that any amendment made in a site licence under Clause 6 or Clause 7, either by a local authority itself or by the Minister on appeal, will be put into the site licence. This will make sure that when a site licence is exposed on the site, it is a current site licence and incorporates any amendment which has been made in it. I am sure that that will meet the wish of the House, and I hope that the House will agree to the new Clause.

Mr. Edward Short: I do not wish to object to the new Clause, but there is one thing which I ought to point out. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that he expects that licences and planning permission for sites will be given for considerable periods—I think that in one case he used the expression, "if not permanently". It is tremendously important that, if we are to improve sites and the conditions on sites and expect site operators to spend a good deal of money on them—and the amount of money spent per caravan on the site, per berth, varies from about £100 to about £200—there should not be many changes in conditions. I hope that local authorities will not withdraw site licences arbitrarily in order to impose new conditions from time to time, but will see that site operators have some security of tenure for a good period ahead so that they are encouraged

to spend the necessary amount of money on them.

Question put and agreed to

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(EXCLUSION OF LONDON FROM PART I.)

Except as otherwise expressly provided. Part I of this Act shall not apply to land in the administrative county of London.—[Sir W. Wakefield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Section 22 of the London County Council (General Powers) Acts, 1959, gives Metropolitan borough councils powers of control over moveable dwellings. That Section was intended to operate in London as a means of controlling caravan sites and their use.
The Bill includes Metropolitan borough councils as local authorities, in accordance with the definition in Clause 23. The House will agree that it is undesirable that the position should be duplicated in this fashion. It will be appreciated that, that being so, the Metropolitan boroughs are left with two alternatives—they can continue to be included in the provisions of the Bill, with the prospect of Section 22 being repealed, or they can be excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee has carefully considered those alternatives and has decided that the second is preferable. The reason is that action has been taken under Section 22 and would be wasted if the Bill repealed it. Section 22 required advertisements to be made before 31st October, last year, giving notice of intention for what will come into force on 1st October of this year. The Metropolitan boroughs feel that the provisions of Section 22 are wide enough to cover the London position. All of those who were members of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill will feel that it is inappropriate for London, but very desirable in many respects for handling the problems of the Provinces and the countryside. For that reason, I hope that the House will approve of the new Clause.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W Wakefield) has made a good case. Parliament cannot wish there to be two concurrent codes for the control of caravans in London and it is as recently as 1959 that the London legislation was enacted. Much of the reason for the Bill in general is that the legislation is out of date, but in the case of London it is not. It was considered as short a time as a year ago, and, although they are not precisely identical with those of the Bill, there is no reason why we should repeal the London provisions and substitute these.
I observe that there is an Amendment to Clause 20 in page 14, line 17, at end insert:
(9) This section extends to the administrative county of London and the expression "local authority" in this section as so extended includes the council of a metropolitan borough.
to retain the application of Clause 20 to London, and I appreciate that the effect of the new Clause, therefore, will be to cut London out from the whole of Part I of the Bill, except for Clause 20 —if that Amendment is accepted. I can see nothing objectionable in that course of action, and I recommend the House to agree to it.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I fully appreciate the case which the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) has made. However, is it not a fact that the 1959 London legislation is much narrower than the scope of the Bill? If the additional powers contained in the Bill are not extended to London, will not the law relating to London be much narrower than for the rest of the country?

Mr. Brooke: I speak again by leave of the House. I do not think that it will be narrower. The caravan problem in London is rather different from that in the hon. Member's constituency of Anglesey. Although there are caravans in London, the number is relatively small and the licensing provisions in the London Act are similar to those of the Bill. I have examined the matter and I cannot see that any difficulty will arise if we allow London to have its own code which has been framed so recently and which has been endorsed so recently by the House.

Mr. Hughes: I fully appreciate the difference between the rural areas and London. However, the Minister is preparing model standards which will come into force when the Bill comes into force. They will not apply to London if the new Clause is accepted. I know that there are not many caravans in London, but there are some, and model standards, which the Minister is preparing in consultation with authorities concerned, should be applicable to the London area.

Mr. Brooke: It is true that technically the model standards will not apply in the London area. Nevertheless, every Metropolitan borough council will be able to familiarise itself with them. The London Act provides for the right of appeal to a magistrates' court against refusal of a site licence, or against conditions in site licences which are not acceptable. The magistrates will not be under any statutory obligation to see whether the site licence conditions are in line with those in the model standards, but in practice, surely, the effect will be that everybody will take note of the model standards. I do not see any difficulty arising.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION FOR CARAVAN SITES.)

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Town and Country Planning Acts. 1947 to 1959. and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts. 1947 to 1959, an application made after the commencement of this Act for planning permission for the use of land as a caravan site shall not be entertained by the local planning authority—

(a) in the case of any agricultural land which is held by the person making the application on a lease or tenancy under which the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural purposes is prohibited; or
(b) in the case of any agricultural land which is held by the person making the application on a lease or tenancy and in respect of which the local planning authority are satisfied that its use for any purpose other than an agricultural purpose would be contrary to the implied terms of the lease or tenancy.

(2) Section thirty-six of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959 (which relates to publication of notices of application for planning permission), shall be read and have effect as if the use of land as a caravan site


were included among the classes of development to which that section applies and section thirty-seven of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959 (which relates to notification of applications for planning permission to owners and agricultural tenants), shall in relation to any application for planning permission for the use of land as a caravan site be read and have effect as if after paragraph (b) of subsection (I) thereof there were inserted the following paragraph—

"(bb) a certificate stating that the applicant has given the requisite notice of the application to all the persons (other than the applicant) who, at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application were owners of land immediately adjoining the land to which the application relates, and setting out the names of those persons, the addresses at which notice of the application was given to them respectively and the date of the service of each such notice".

(3) For the purposes of this section the expression "agricultural" has the same meaning as is assigned to it by section one hundred and nineteen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and section one hundred and thirteen of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.—[Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
When application is made fur planning permission and all the procedure has to be gone through, it is a great waste of everybody's time if the application is made in respect of land let on an agricultural tenancy where there is specific provision in the lease that the land shall be let for agricultural purposes only. The first part of the new Clause deals with the case where there is a farm lease which says specifically, binding upon the farmer, that the land shall be used for agricultural purposes only.
The Clause also deals with land which is let for farming purposes, but where, although the lease does not expressly say that the land could be used for farming purposes only, that is an implied condition of the letting. It would be a great waste of time to go through the procedure of applying for planning permission and having it granted and so on for the establishment of a caravan site on such land if it were then found that the land could not be let for that purpose.
The effect of the Clause is to preclude applications for planning permission in

both cases on the ground of the trouble and expense of dealing with planning applications when it is expressly provided, or where it is the intention of the parties to the lease, that the use of the land should be restricted to agricultural purposes.
The second part of the Clause is necessary in view of the provisions of Section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959. That Act provides for the notification of an application for planning permission to the owners and tenants of agricultural land before an application is made, and a certificate stating that the requirements of that Section have been complied with must accompany the application for planning permission.
The Clause provides for an additional safeguard to cover the case of applications for planning permission in the use of land as caravan sites. It is proposed that it should be a statutory requirement that the owners of the land immediately adjoining the land for which application is made must also be notified of the application. I think this necessary because the owners of adjoining land are obviously very much concerned in land that is to be used as a site for caravans.
4.30 p.m.
I speak as a caravan owner. As I said when we were considering the Second Reading of the Bill, I enjoy mobile caravanning, spending my time in an entirely different way from that in which it is spent here. I enjoy caravanning the countryside, and I have every sympathy with those who want to provide sites for people like myself who enjoy spending a night or two in a caravan at different places on our journeys, or perhaps staying even a little longer.
Nevertheless, I recognise that there are objections to the establishment of caravan sites and that the strongest objections may well be by those people who are owners of adjoining land. The last thing I want is for caravanning to come into disrepute because people are able to get their sites easily, without proper examination and against the wishes of owners of immediately adjoining property. I think that it is only right that when an application is made for planning permission for establishing a caravan site, notification should be given that the adjoining owners have been notified of the


application for planning permission. It is for that reason that the second part of the Clause is added.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Acceptance of the first part of the proposed Clause would surely constitute a rather important departure in principle from what has been regarded hitherto as desirable in governing these matters. At present there is perfect freedom to anybody to apply for permission to develop land. The right to make that application and to explore the matter does not derive from any interest in the land of a pecuniary character or from title or anything of that kind.
This has certain advantages. It leads to flexibility. It means that the advantages of planning permission can sometimes attach to land when the owner of the interest in the land would not have thought of exploring the matter. It is often of advantage in the case of prospective purchasers of an interest in land. A prospective purchaser may contemplate the development of a piece of land but, before commencing negotiations, he may want to find out what the planning position is or is likely to be. On the whole, it is desirable and makes for good planning and good land administration if he has that opportunity of applying for planning permission to see what befalls. I think that the first part of this Clause would constitute a very undesirable departure in principle.
I feel rather less objection to the second part of it; I doubt whether I have any objection at all. The Clause, for me, however, is vitiated by the first part.

Mr. Ross: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), I have considerable sympathy with the second part of the Clause. I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) did not take the opportunity in Committee of putting down two new Clauses, one to deal with the first part and one to deal with the second part, and then probably we should have been able to sort out this problem.
I do not see how the Government can accept the first part of the Clause. If they fail to accept the first part, that rules out the second part as well. The hon. Member pleaded with us and told us that he was himself a caravanner. No doubt that was to soften us up and

to demonstrate that he would do nothing against the interests of caravanners or anyone else. The trouble is that I have been in this House for a long time, and so has he, and I have always looked upon him as the authentic voice of the landlord and property owner. I think that he will agree with me that sometimes in that respect my judgment is not far wrong.
Planning authority permission surely is on the rightness or wrongness of something in relation to considerations from the planning point of view. The hon. Member asks the planning authority to go into the relationship between tenant and owner as to what is in a lease and what is not. Moreover, subsection (1, b) states:
In the case of any agricultural land which is held by the person making the application on a lease or tenancy and in respect of which the local planning authority are satisfied that its use for any purpose other than an agricultural purpose would be contrary to the implied terms of the lease or tenancy
It states "implied terms". Why should we ask the local planning authority not only to read what is stated in a lease or agreement relating to a tenancy but also to read all sorts of implications into it? The hon. Member's words were, "Not just what it says but implied conditions". That is a matter for a court of law. That is not a matter for the planning authority. I think that the hon. Member was asking too much of us in expecting that we would hand this kind of thing over to local planning authorities when, obviously it is a matter entirely for the courts.
It may well be that, irrespective of what is said in the lease, the owner has said to the tenant, "You can carry on and I shall not object." According to the wording of the new Clause, that would not carry any weight with the local planning authority which, under this Clause, has to examine the actual agreement of the tenancy or lease and would not be concerned with any oral agreement between the tenant and the owner. I think that in every way examaination of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this Clause is such as to lead the House to the judgment that we cannot accept it.

Sir James Duncan: I should not have spoken but for the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).


This new Clause is just as likely to benefit the tenant as the landlord because if planning permission were granted for a caravan site, I gather that the rent receivable would be higher than the rent for agricultural use. This Clause is, therefore, just as much in the interest of a tenant who has a farm, and who may lose part of his farm as a caravan site, as it is in the interest of the landlord. The tenant may lose a very valuable part of the farm and it may be reduced to an uneconomic size.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee and I approach the question of planning law with hesitation, but from an agricultural point of view there seems to be a great deal to be said for the new Clause. Agriculture is a long-term business and if we are to have a lease or agreement that a farm is to be let for agricultural purposes it would be a pity if someone were able to break the terms of the lease to set up a caravan site. If it is the wish of the landlord and the tenant that a piece of land should be given up for this purpose, then the lease or agreement can be modified to this end.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and particularly the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—because this matter will apply very much in Scotland in the future—will accept at any rate the first part of the new Clause, if not now, then at a later stage. I support the new Clause.

Sir K. Joseph: The proceedings of the Bill have been so friendly that I am not particularly embarrassed by leaning to some extent on the arguments of hon. Members opposite in dealing with the first part of the new Clause. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out, this would be a revolutionary procedure in planning law. The planning authorities are bound to consider planning criteria. They are not entitled to look into even the expressed terms of a lease, and if we were to instruct them to look into the implied terms of a lease, I think that we should be carrying the requirements not only much too far legally, but quite impracticably too far.
Both the landlord and the tenant have their own protection in the lease itself. The mere fact that planning permission

has been given, either to the landlord or to the tenant, cannot override the terms of the lease, or the tenancy, and the landlord or tenant who is disgruntled by the behaviour of the other party has his remedy in the lease. I must ask my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. ThorntonKemsley) to accept that that is so. Planning powers in no way intrude between the landlord and the tenant.
I turn to the other parts of the new Clause. If my hon. Friend had not declared himself a caravanner, I might have thought that he was frightened of caravans, because he is trying to erect a series of extra barriers against caravan sites. He did not speak about that part of his new Clause which would apply Section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, to caravans. The House will remember that this is the Section which entitles my right hon. Friend, in any sort of development which he thinks might be regarded as a bad neighbour, to lay down that in such a case there shall be public advertisement of the proposed development.
My right hon. Friend has already listed some of the types of development under the General Development Order. They include such things as public conveniences, sewage disposal works, slaughterhouses, knackers' yards, cinemas and dance halls. I have not given a complete list, but these are the kind of developments in which neighbours are bound to be particularly interested because of the nature of the development.
But it is one thing for my right hon. Friend to include or exclude a particular type of development under the General Development Order, which he can vary by Order, and quite another thing to choose one type of development, namely caravans, and apply statutory sanction to it. That is an inflexible way of behaving, even if caravans deserved to be treated in that way. Moreover, I suggest to my hon. Friend, who is a keen caravanner, that caravans are not as inherently undesirable as neighbours as are such things as slaughterhouses and knackers' yards which, though essential to our civilisation, are naturally likely to arouse a certain apprehension in their immediate neighbourhood. The fact is that although we hear of bad caravan sites, the vast number of


caravans are disposed in suitable places and in very small numbers. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to pick out caravans alone and to apply to them the public notice procedure of Section 36 of the 1959 Act.
My hon. Friend completes his new Clause by requiring that notices under Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which requires that they shall be given to all those with an interest in the land, should also be given to adjoining owners. Here, too, he is treating caravans in a unique way. This requirement of notice to adjoining owners is not applied to any other sort of development, and I do not think that my hon. Friend has made or that, as a caravanner, he could make a case that caravans need to be treated in this exceptional way.
4.45 p.m.
It is the duty of a local planning authority, with the sanction of local elections behind it, to take account of the local interests before granting permission. I point out to my hon. Friend, quite apart from this aspect, that opening the door to objections from adjoining owners in every planning case involving caravans might swamp the planning machinery. The present state of the law may have led to some bad caravan sites, which are bad neighbours, and that state of the law is what the Bill sets out to cure. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the Draconian powers which he wishes to take against caravan sites in this Clause are not justified, and I hope that he will withdraw the Clause.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: In view of the explanation which my hon. Friend has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(AS TO OBJECTIONS TO ISSUE OF SITE LICENCES.)

(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect where an application is made to a local authority under section three of this Act for the issue of a site licence.
(2) The local authority shall not issue a site licence unless notice of the application therefor has first been given by the applicant by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the area of the local authority.

(3) Every such notice shall state that any person who desires to object to the issue of the site licence should send to the clerk to the local authority before such date not being earlier than fourteen days after the publication of the notice as may be specified in the notice two copies of a brief statement in writing of the grounds of his objections.
(4) The local authority shall consider any such objections before deciding whether or not to issue a site licence and after making their decision shall communicate it to every person from whom they have received such objections.
(5) Any such person who is aggrieved by the decision of the local authority may appeal to a magistrate's court.—[Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
As Clause 3 is worded, and as I understand it, if planning permission has been given by the planning authority to use land as a caravan site, the local authority in whose area that site is situated must automatically grant a site licence. My hon. Friends and I think that that action ought not to be automatic. The local authority can be a district council—quite a small authority—and certainly it will be an authority which knows the district and its requirements best.
We think that when an application is made to that authority for the issue of a site licence, it should not issue such a licence until it has advertised in a local newspaper the intention to grant a licence for the purpose of a caravan site. The Clause states the procedure which has to be followed by anyone who desires to object to the site licence. He has to send the objection to the clerk of the local authority. Any objections will then be considered by the local authority before it decides whether to issue a site licence.
In other words, we want to see that the local authority reaches its decision on behalf of the local inhabitants, and we require the local authority to advertise the fact that the application has been made. This will not delay it very much —four or five weeks at the most—but it will place the obligation on it to advertise the fact locally so that local inhabitants have an opportunity of objecting to the proposal to establish a site, if they desire to do so.
This does not mean that if there are objections the licence cannot be issued.


It simply means that that will be taken as some evidence by the local authority of the feeling in the neighbourhood and that it will consider that evidence before it issues a site licence, instead of doing it automatically, as I understand it will under the provisions of Clause 3.
There is one minor point to which I should refer. We propose that any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the local authority may appeal to the magistrates' court. In Scotland that would be the sheriff court. We think that is desirable to provide an appeal to an independent, outside authority. It is no good providing for an appeal to the local authority which has to issue the licence. We think that would be contrary to the decision and certainly to the spirit of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act passed by this House in 1958. Therefore, we propose that persons aggrieved by the decision of the local authority shall be able to appeal to the magistrates' court. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider these provisions are fair and that the House will decide that this Clause ought to be included in the Bill.

Mr. C. Hughes: I listened carefully to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) in support of this new Clause and I find very little merit in them. It seems to me that, were the new Clause accepted, it would make it possible for frivolous and unsubstantial objections to be made which would delay the processes of the law. We must constantly bear in mind that the successful operation of the provisions of this Bill depends mainly upon the support of local authorities. After all, they are the elected representatives of the people. If they do not carry out their duties to the satisfaction of the electorate, the electors have a remedy as indeed they have in the case of Members of Parliament.
In addition, it seems to hon. Members on this side of the House that there are adequate safeguards to cover all the points made by the hon. Member, not only in this Bill but in other planning legislation. On reflection, I think that the hon. Member will realise that this new Clause is not really necessary.

Sir K. Joseph: I am a little shattered by what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) because, in the most gentle and friendly way, he has virtually torn up the principles on which this Bill is based. It is based on two main themes, that there should be single planning decisions about the location of caravans and a single procedure for appeal when an individual is aggrieved by a planning decision. Very quietly my hon. Friend is proposing to remove by this new Clause both those themes. Not only has he put that amount of dynamite under the Bill but also he has blown up the validity of local Government in those matters which I thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House treated as mature and sensible. I must apologise to the House for taking a little time to deal with such a substantial proposal as is here made by my hon. Friend.
He proposes that the local authority should have discretion to refuse to give a site licence although planning permission in any particular case has been granted. In effect, this would set up the double planning procedure, because an applicant would not only have to jump the hurdle of the planning application successfully but would have to jump the same hurdle for the local authority before getting a site licence.
During the Committee stage proceedings there was considerable argument submitted to my right hon. Friend that some provision should be put into the Bill requiring the consultation which my right hon. Friend asserted would, in practically every case, take place between the local planning authority and the local authority; that is, the authority considering planning on the one hand and the authority issuing the site licence on the other. My right hon. Friend agreed and in Clause 19 there is provision requiring the local planning authority to consult with the local authority which would have the control of the site licences before planning permission is given for a caravan site. I hope my hon. Friend will agree, therefore, that the local authority which would have responsibility for the granting of the site licence will be brought in before a planning decision is given.


The second point is, even if the local authority were to disagree with the proposed granting of planning permission, why should that local authority be put in a different position regarding caravans than, for example, regarding housing? I apologise to the House for repeating an argument which was advanced a number of times during the Committee stage, but here we have a situation exactly analogous to housing, where a local planning authority gives or refuses permission and the local authority controls the size and quality of the housing by way of byelaws. It is the same pattern which we seek to reproduce here. We believe that the local authority should not be given the power to do the job of the planning authority. It will have been consulted by the planning authority anyway, but it should be given power, as is given in the Bill, to control by site licences the conditions under which caravans can be put on any site approved for planning purposes by the local planning authority.
My hon. Friend goes on to suggest that public notice should be given by advertisement. He rejected any argument that this might delay the procedure —I think somewhat airily—by saying that it might hold up things for a matter of five or six weeks. My hon. Friend cannot be seized of the size of this planning problem and the anxiety of my right hon. Friend that the existing delays, arising from the vast number of planning appeals to be dealt with, should certainly not be made worse and, if possible, should be reduced.
To open the floodgates and allow local authorities to be subjected to pressures from any person whether directly interested or not, would mean that local authorities would be under unbearable pressure, and secondly, it would make fantastic the delay in decisions on planning proposals. Besides—this is where my hon. Friend rejects the whole argument which I thought everyone had accepted about local government—on every local authority there will be a representative of the area where the public may be interested. It is the job of the local representative to be aware of the reaction of his "constituents" if I may so call them, to what is proposed. The representative might even have to be brave enough to decide in favour of a project

which for one reason or another one of his constituents may oppose. I suggest that my hon. Friend's proposal is unworkable because of the delays, and wrong because it is a breach of the independence of local government.
As if this were not enough, my hon. Friend proposes, thirdly, to introduce the double appeal procedure which has led to all the trouble about enforcing planning decisions up to now. In this new Clause it is suggested that anyone who is aggrieved by the decision of the local authority may appeal to the magistrates' court. In the Bill we have retained appeal to the magistrates' court against conditions imposed in a site licence by a local authority. But in this new Clause I think my hon. Friend intends to give the applicant the right to appeal to the magistrates' court on a planning matter. It is this duality of appeal procedure which we wished to avoid and, after a great deal of discussion, this was achieved by Clause 28 of the Bill which puts all such appeals on these matters to my right hon. Friend. I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend for dealing with this matter at such length, but I hope I have shown that it goes to the root of the Bill in not one, but three, ways. I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw the Motion.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, with-drawn.

Clause 2.—(EXEMPTIONS FROM LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.)

5.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from the beginning to "no".
This Amendment is linked with the next Amendment on the Notice Paper, namely, in page 2, line 16, leave out from second "the" to end of Clause and insert:
Schedule (Cases where a caravan site licence is not required) to this Act and that Schedule shall have effect accordingly.
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the new Schedule to deal with cases where a caravan site licence is not required, because the purpose of the first two Amendments is to get the exemptions out of Clause 2 and to set them out more conveniently in a Schedule at the end of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is an Amendment to the new Schedule in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) and that would be discussed with the new Schedule. Of course, were a Division desired, that would come at a later stage.

Mr. C. Hughes: I agree that the Schedule should be discussed now, provided that I shall have an opportunity to discuss my Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will have full opportunity to discuss his Amendment to the new Schedule, but if he wishes to divide the House, a Division will take place at the time when we reach the Schedule.

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged.

Mr. H. Brooke: On considering the Bill as it emerged from the Committee stage it appeared more convenient to set out the exemptions altogether in a Schedule at the end of the Bill. The reason was that a number of helpful suggestions were made during the Committee stage and the Schedule seeks to embody in proper language those series of suggestions which appeared prima facie to be generally acceptable. My hope that they are acceptable is strengthened by the fact that the new Schedule has been on the Notice Paper for a week or so and the only Amendment down to it is, as I think the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) would agree, not much more than of a drafting character.
It might be convenient if I indicated those features which have been introduced since the exemptions were embodied in the first instance in Clause 2 of the Bill. The first paragraph of the new Schedule to which I shall invite, the attention of the House is paragraph 2. This is designed to afford a further measure of freedom for the touring caravanner. During the Committee stage everyone was anxious that the travelling caravanner should not be discouraged by this Bill. It is not the individual caravanner who creates the problem of caravan sites with which the Bill is mostly concerned. At the same time I think it is universally recognised that the travelling caravanner should not be free from any sort of control or he might so organise his travelling as to stay for a long time on one spot without being

subject to any control. But certainly it is the firm desire of the Government that the Bill should not in any way discourage people who want to spend a caravan holiday travelling from place to place or who may extend their travelling over several nights in order to get to the spot where they intend to spend their holiday.
Paragraph 2 of the new Schedule grants exemptions for the single caravanner who stops anywhere for one or two nights in the course of travelling. During the Committee stage one hon. Friend of mine quoted the example of a vicar who might like to invite his caravanning friends to spend a night in his yard or garden if they happened to be in the neighbourhood. This Clause will entirely free the vicar from any fear that he would be infringing the law in making such an offer.
I hope the House will agree that this freedom for the travelling caravanner to use any place he likes without needing to get a licence should apply only to an occasional use, that is to say that it should be limited to not more than twenty-eight days in a year. If one removed any sort of limit it would open the door to commercial advertising of a caravan site. It is not a site which could be used by a whole series of people travelling through, or there might be a caravan on the spot practically every night of the summer. If anything of that kind is contemplated, a licence will be required.
The next paragraph to which I invite the attention of the House is paragraph 3 which incorporates the exemption which is now in Clause 2 (2, h), but in the new Schedule it includes a further provision to enable the Minister, or in Scotland the Secretary of State, to relax by Order the limit of five acres and the time limit of twenty-eight days in a year in a particular area. That suggestion has been met. It will give a little more flexibility. It is difficult to see that there will be any disadvantage from so providing.
The next paragraph which is of a novel character compared with the original Bill is paragraph 5. This provides an exemption for club sites, on the lines of a proposal which found universal approval in the Standing Committee. The exemption is based on the issue by the organisation of a certificate for each site. The


certificate will be renewable from year to year. That will enable the extent of the exemption to be kept under review and, if any check is needed, it will provide a check on the proper management of sites. The exemption will apply only to sites approved by an exempted organisation for the use of its members, and paragraph 12 of the Schedule makes it clear that only organisations concerned with recreational activities will qualify for exemption.
Paragraph 6 deals with caravan rallies. This was another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in the Standing Committee. This paragraph will cover a caravan rally arranged by an exempted organisation which lasts for not more than five days. We have gone into the length of the exemption. My hon. Friend suggested seven days in the Amendment he moved in Committee, but the information which we have been able to gather indicates that the type of caravan rally which this paragraph is designed to exempt does not normally last for more than five days. If anything of this sort is to be of a semi-permanent character, clearly a licence should be required.
I should like, finally, to say a few words about paragraph 10, because I expect that in the House, as in the Standing Committee, everyone will be interested in travelling showmen. This paragraph extends the present exemption given to travelling showmen in Clause 2 (2, g). It extends that exemption to cover the showmen's winter quarters. I will not go further over the case for this. It was fully ventilated in Committee and accepted by the Government. It will be noticed that the exemption in this paragraph will now apply only to showmen who are members of an organisation recognised by the Minister as consisting of bona fide travelling showmen. That idea was mooted in the Standing Committee, and it was acceptable. It will certainly be a safeguard against abuse of these provisions.
I trust that the House will feel that the Government have made a genuine attempt to pay attention to what was said from both sides of the Standing Committee on the scope of these exemptions. If it is suggested from any quarter that one can now drive a coach and four through the control provisions of the Bill, it will be incorrect, because one

cannot. We are dealing here with the fringe of the main body of the caravan problem. We are seeking to give exemption to certain people who we think deserve exemption by reason of the nature of what they are engaged in. We do not want to clutter up the administration of caravan law with a tremendous amount of unnecessary paper and needless control. We are anxious that people should enjoy themselves, provided that they do not infringe the rights and amenities of others. The fact that the new Schedule has stood on the Notice Paper for a week without any substantial Amendment to it being tabled encourages the Government to hope that the House will accept that our attempt to shape the exemptions has been a genuine one.

Mr. Edward Short: We welcome the Schedule. We think that it meets the anomalies, which arise very largely because the Bill, though based on a Report which dealt purely with residential caravanning, is being applied to all cravanning—touring caravanners, showmen, and so on. A great many anomalies were apparent on Second Reading and in Committee. We feel that in the Schedule the Minister has gone a considerable way to meet those difficulties and the points which were made.
Paragraph 2 is new. It helps to make life possible again for the touring caravanner. It is rather restricted. The Minister mentioned the vicar. The vicar's hospitality may be very good indeed and one may wish to stay for more than two nights, but this paragraph limits the stay to one van for not more than two nights. Nevertheless, it is a very great step forward and makes life possible once more for the touring caravanner.
Coming to paragraph 3, we removed in Committee the limitation of rural district councils. As I said in Committee, I felt that five acres was too much. The Minister has at any rate gone some way to meet that by taking power to specify such lower acreage as he may think fit. We shall have to see how it works out. It may well be necessary for caravanning interests some time in the future to ask that some smaller acreage be put in place of the five acres.
Paragraph 4 is the exemption which appeared in the Bill originally. It was sub-paragraph (c) of Clause 2 (2), and not sub-paragraph (h), as the Minister said. Paragraph 5 is largely the amendment which I moved in Committee and which the Minister accepted in principle. It limits the number of vans which may be on such a site to five. There is no limitation on the time. This could cover vans which remain on the same site for the whole of the summer—in other words, weekend vans. It could enable a very large number of small unlicensed sites—I mean unlicensed by the local authority—to grow up throughout the country. I hope that it will not. I simply say that it could happen. What the Minister has in mind here is to help the touring caravanner. Obviously no planning permission is required. It is covered by the General Development Order and it would be quite possible for anyone to set up a site of this kind, provided that it was licensed by one of the exempted organisations, and use the site with five caravans stationed on it throughout the whole of the summer. I do not think that was the Minister's intention.
Paragraph 6 caters for rallies. Five days are adequate and we are grateful that the Minister has put that in. There has been an extension in the case of occupational caravans, and we welcome that. I am rather sorry that in the case of building and engineering sites the caravans must be on the land where the work is taking place or on adjoining land. There may well be cases where the builder can only put caravans on a site a couple of fields away. That will be ruled out, because paragraph 5 provides that it has to be on the site or on adjoining land. However, we shall see how that works out.
We welcome the inclusion of travelling showmen's winter quarters. This is almost a traditional exemption now. Travelling showmen have had it for many years and have never abused it.
5.15 p.m.
Paragraph 11 contains a change which goes some way, but not the whole way, to meet an objection which a number of hon. Members and myself raised on Second Reading and in Committee. The change is that a local authority site

will be exempt if the site is in the local authority's own area. Clause 20 defines a local authority for this purpose as including a joint planning authority. The case which I thought might cause difficulty is a joint planning authority in a National Park setting up a site, but the rural district council or the urban district council within the joint planning area not having a say in the matter. This paragraph does not meet the difficulty. It could still take place. The paragraph goes only part of the way towards meeting it. When I raised this in Committee, the Minister said that he thought that I was on a good thing. Apparently he has not solved that problem. Nevertheless, we welcome this slight change.
I think that there is something wrong with the numbering of the Schedule, because paragraphs 2 to 11 are obviously sub-paragraphs of paragraph 1. No doubt that can be put right. Paragraph 13 is obviously not an exemption. It gives the Minister the power to withdraw all the exemptions, except that applying to local authorities. The exempted organisations should have the power to make representations when the Minister intends to withdraw their exemptions.
Apart from those minor criticisms and observations, we welcome this relaxation and clearing up of the anomalies which were apparent when the Bill was first published.

Mr. John M. Temple: I add my appreciation of the new Schedule to that which has just been expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). It is magnificent work on the part of the Parliamentary draftsman concerned. It is so clear that we shall not require a lawyer to explain its provisions to us. That is a triumph.
I want to mention certain aspects of the Schedule, because I had the privilege of making certain representations in Committee. It was recognised on both sides of the Standing Committee that the man in the street, the touring caravanner who was not a member of an organisation, and the oversea visitor who was not a member of any national organisations, would have no chance of staying for one or two nights in any spot which appealed to him. Therefore, I very much welcome


the relaxations in paragraphs 1 and 2, because they will make it possible for the overseas visitor to move around Britain and stay one or two nights in a yard adjacent to an inn, in the vicar's garden, as the Minister said, if the vicar is kind enough to invite him in, or in any other place which may appeal to him. That is a very reasonable relaxation. It should not in any way inconvenience local authorities. It will bring immense flexibility to the life of the touring caravanner, and will be greatly appreciated.
The exempted organisations will be such organisations as the Caravan Club of Great Britain. They are very responsible organisations. Under paragraphs 4 and 5, they will have power to occupy, supervise and approve sites. The occupied and supervised sites will be sites which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central referred to as being capable of being occupied throughout the summer. Those sites will be under the direst supervision of the exempted organisations. If these exempted organisations do not exercise the control which we expect from them and which we have every reason to expect by reason of their excellent past conduct, their exemption can be withdrawn.
I have one particular point which I want to put to my right hon. Friend. It concerns the approved locations, what I have referred to as the certificated locations, established by exempted organisations. Under paragraph 5 (3) these organisations are to send particulars to my right hon. Friend of the locations. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend intends in some way to communicate the positions of these locations to the local authorities concerned. It might well be that he might consider adding after "to the Minister" the words "and to the local authorities". Perhaps whoever is to reply will say whether it is the intention of the Minister to inform the local authorities concerned of the certificated locations.
I had the privilege of speaking in Committee on behalf of the travelling showmen. I should like to read to the House a letter dated 30th May which I received from the general secretary of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain. He wrote:
We are very pleased to see the Government Amendment on the Order Paper, which

gives us everything we can reasonably want. I have emphasised to my Council that such an exemption … places the responsibility squarely upon us to see that it is not abused.
The general secretary of the Showmen's Guild, which no doubt will claim to be an exempted organisation under the Bill, accepts on behalf of the members of the Guild—and it represents about 95 per cent. of the travelling showmen of Great Britain—the fact that responsibility will lay fairly and squarely on the Showmen's Guild. I think that we can have every confidence that the Showmen's Guild will measure up to its responsibilities. If it does not do so, my right hon. Friend has the immediate sanction of being able to withdraw its exemption. Once again, the long-standing exemption of travelling showmen has been recognised, and rightly, in the Bill.
Paragraph 13 gives the Minister power to nullify the exemption, but equally it gives an exempted organisation three months' grace. By this power local authorities will feel confident that the exempted organisations will have a healthy restriction put upon them, because their exemption can be removed at any time by application to my right hon. Friend, who will retain the ultimate sanction. The period of three months' grace is to enable exempted organisations to notify their members.
I wholeheartedly welcome the new Schedule and hope that it will be added to the Bill.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I must apologise for speaking in the debate, since I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill so thoroughly. I have had several representations from my constituents, who are particularly anxious about the position of the mobile caravanner. As I have been a mobile caravanner, I know something of the position. If one goes from Twickenham to North Wales with a caravan, it is obvious that one must stay at least one night on the way. My constituents felt strongly that Clause 2 was far too restrictive and that the requirement that a site would be exempted if it was five acres or more did not meet their case. I am, therefore, delighted to find that their needs have been met to such a large extent in the new Schedule. Obviously the mobile caravanner, whom we want to encourage, must stay from time to time with a friend or with a


householder with a small house. Therefore, as I think that the new Schedule meets the needs of the mobile caravanner, the fears of my constituents should be allayed.
The last point that I want to put to my right hon. Friend concerns the position of a club known as the British Caravanners' Club which, it is hoped, will fall within the list of exempted organisations. This is a highly respected club which has been in my constituency for about 50 years. It is a section of the Camping Club of Great Britain and Ireland. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can say now what organisations he proposes to list, but I hope that he will look upon this club, which, I understand, is highly thought of, with sympathy and favour and will bring it within the list of exempted organisations. Subject to those two points, I should like to say how much I appreciate the new Schedule.

Sir W. Wakefield: Like other hon. Members, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing this new Schedule. In Committee, I said that the wording of that part of the Bill stating that a five-acre site would be exempted needed clarification, and that planning officers who would have to operate the Bill were concerned about its ambiguity. I believe that the new Schedule greatly clarifies the points that I made, and I feel that it will be of very great advantage.
Those of us who were in Committee realise that, while we wished to have adequate control, there was need for giving reasonable freedom to those who wished to tour in caravans. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) can, I think, assure his constituents that, as a result of the discussions in Committee, the person who wishes to do so should have plenty of opportunity and reasonable freedom to do all the touring in a caravan that he wants.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) expressed some anxiety about the possibility of exempted organisations abusing the use of a site by keeping perhaps five caravans on it throughout the year. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of

Chester (Mr. Temple), who dealt with that point. I do not think the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Central need have any anxiety. If any exempted organisation in any way abuses its privileges, since the certificate will be only on an annual basis, the exemption can be withdrawn if those abuses continue. Just as in the case of the travelling showmen, I am sure that all exempted organisations will go out of their way to recognise their responsibility and to ensure that their members live up to the requirements of their organisation to justify continued exemption.

Mr. Short: I did not criticise the exempted organisations. There would be no abuse of the law, because, as I understand it, the law permits this. What I said was that surely the Minister intended this for touring caravans. As I understand it, the new Schedule allows a site to have five caravans on it for the whole of the summer without the law being broken. I do not say that there would be abuse on the part of exempted organisations but that, as it stands, the new Schedule would allow it.

Sir W. Wakefield: I quite appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps I did not mean abuse of the law but of the intention, perhaps, to have this position reserved for the tourer and not to have the sites utilised by the weekend caravanner. That is what I meant when I drew attention to what the hon. Gentleman said.
I conclude by expressing the hope that the Bill, as amended in this way, will be found to be satisfactory and of very great benefit to all those who operate sites, who dwell on sites at the weekends, or who wish to stay on them for a night or two as they tour the countryside. I hope that the Bill, as amended, will give ever-increasing pleasure to the growing number of people who are using the caravan and who will continue to use it in the years to come.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I wish to join with my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend on producing this Schedule. It gets over a number of objections which I have


received from my constituents in Folkestone and Hythe, where we have the pleasure of having many caravan dwellers.
There is one point which affects the civil engineering industry, and here I declare my interest. The object of paragraph 9 of the proposed new Schedule is constructive as far as industry is concerned and is most helpful. There is, however, one point that I should like to put about hydro-electric schemes. The paragraph says:
… a caravan site of land which forms part of, or adjoins, land on which building or engineering operations are being carried out …
I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend is sufficiently conversant with hydro-electric sites not to wish the men employed on them to have to live on the top of mountains when they are building dams. It is usual on such sites to find the caravans in the valley where their occupants can enjoy the amenities of the land. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could give the assurance that that is the intention of the paragraph.

Mr. C. Hughes: You were good enough, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to say that I could speak to my Amendment to the Schedule at this stage.

Sir J. Duncan: On a point of order. If the Amendment were discussed now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps that would limit the discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The Amendment is not being moved now. It is being discussed with the new Schedule.

Mr. Hughes: In referring to the Amendment, the Minister said that it was a drafting one, but it is a little more than that, as I shall hope to prove. Paragraph 9 of the Schedule, to which reference has just been made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), exempts caravans which are used for accommodating persons employed in connection with building and engineering operations. This is a necessary exemption, and we on this side of the House agree with it. It is primarily intended to cover large-scale constructional works undertaken by big firms which move from one area to another and where mobility of labour is

an important factor, stand that.
However, since the Committee stage it has been brought to my attention that there may be a person who is vitally interested in building operations without actually being employed on them. The words used in the paragraph are:
… employed in connection with the said operations.
Let us take, for example, the case of a man who has bought a plot of land and who is building a house on it—he and his wife and family have no alternative accommodation and, therefore, they wish to live on the site that they have bought perhaps for six or nine months whilst the house is going up. It seems to me that a case of that kind is not far removed, in spirit at least, from the exemption in paragraph 1 of the Schedule, that is to say, where it states:
A site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment as such of a dwelling house within the curtilage of which the land is situated.
As I read it, paragraph 1 does not cover the case which I have in mind. If it does, I shall be glad to have that assurance from the Minister.
I am concerned with the use of a caravan in relation to the anticipated enjoyment of a dwelling-house in course of construction and not of a house that is actually built. The Amendment standing in the name of myself and two of my hon. Friends seeks to add the words, "Or engaged" to the paragraph. I think that the Amendment would cover the type of house which I have in mind, because if a person has contracted to build a house, is paying for the house and owns the land on which it is being built, then, presumably, he is engaged in connection with the building operations and would be covered by paragraph 9 if those words were inserted I think that the Amendment is a very reasonable one and well within the spirit of the exemptions included in the Schedule. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept it later in the debate.
There is one other point that I wish to make. It is a general point on paragraphs 10 and 12 dealing with exempted organisations to which the Minister will be granting certificates. Will Parliament and the public be able to know to


which organisations precisely the right hon. Gentleman has granted certificates of exemption? It is desirable, particularly under paragraph 12, that some list should be available somewhere. This is certainly something that local authorities will wish to know, and I shall be glad if the Minister will say how he proposes to make the list known to Members of the House, to local authorities and to the public generally.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I will not detain the House for more than two or three minutes. I was one of those who, on Second Reading, were critical of certain aspects of what was then, and still is, Clause 2 of the Bill as it affected people like myself who enjoy mobile caravanning. I wish to say how much I appreciate the work done by my colleagues in the Committee, as I was not, and in particular by my right hon. Friend the Minister in producing so quickly this new Schedule, which seems to me meet all the points that many of us raised on Second Reading and which were subsequently raised by many of my colleagues in Committee. I particularly like paragraphs 2 and 5 of the new Schedule which go the whole way to meet the points which I raised on Second Reading.
There is one point which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) intended to bring to your notice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and perhaps I might ask the question on his behalf. It has to do with paragraph 7, which deals with agriculture and forestry workers. From the wording of the exemption for agricultural workers, it is quite clear that the site licence will
… not be required for the use as a caravan site of agricultural land for the accommodation during a particular season of a person or persons employed in farming operations …
That is perfectly clear concerning agriculture. In that connection "a particular season" is, one imagines, the time of harvest, or a season in which particular work is required on the land, and for that reason accommodation is required for some of the workers. But this is not so clear in the case of forestry, although the same phrase "during a particular season" is used. Forest land may be required for planting—and I hope that here I am making the point

which would have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus. Planting might be construed to be a particular season.
What so often happens is the kind of thing we were faced with in the north of Scotland three or four years ago, when we had the disastrous wind blow at the end of February. Trees were swept down like ninepins before a 90 m.p.h. gale. It took months, indeed years, to get the trees cleared. Contingents of forestry workers were brought in. Many had to live in caravans because there was no other accommodation for them. This sort of situation, certainly in spirit, ought to be covered by the wording of paragraph (8), and I hope that the Minister will have another look at this to make sure that the words "during a particular season" have, in respect of forestry, the meaning that they are intended to have—namely, that caravans placed on the land for the purposes of forestry when some particular work is to be carried on for a period shall not require a site licence.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am grateful for the kind things that have been said about this new Schedule by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is the case that a number of people in my Department have been working hard under my instructions to try and get forms of words which would satisfactory meet a number of excellent suggestions made in Committee. I think it is further testimony to the splendedly co-operative way in which we have taken the Bill through all its stages up to now that the Government seem to have had considerable success in meeting and overcoming the legitimate criticisms which were made of Clause 2 as it originally stood.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) was a little anxious about paragraph 11. I must apologise for not having specifically mentioned it in my original speech. If he looks at the definition of a local authority in Clause 25, he will find that it does not include a joint planning board, and therefore a caravan site which was run by a joint planning board in a national park would be subject to licensing by the district council. I think that that was what he desired.
A number of questions were raised about paragraph 5 concerning the certified locations, the sites granted a certificate by an approved organisation. I do not remember whether when the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central first raised this general point in Committee he suggested that there should be any time limit on it, but I think that a certain element of time limit is secured by the fact that in paragraph 12 it is laid down that before granting a certificate for exemption to any one of these organisations the Minister must be
… satisfied that its objects include the encouragement or promotion of recreational activities.
If an organisation then started virtually to certify a number of sites which were not really being used for holiday purposes but for permanent residence, quite frankly I think it would endanger its certificate.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Short: I have not raised this before. I did not suggest that these caravans would be for residential purposes but that they might be left on the site for the whole of the summer and used at weekends by the owners. What the Minister had in mind was to assist touring caravanners. With regard to the other point, the definition of a local authority is in Clause 20. Subsection (8) of that Clause states that the expression
local authority '… includes a joint planning board …
This surely includes a joint planning board in considering which local authorities can set up caravan sites.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me there. It is true that in Clause 20 the expression "local authority" is defined to include a joint planning board. I accept that, but that definition only defines the words "local authority" for the purposes of Clause 20, and the general definition of "local authority" in the other Clauses is in Clause 25. We are not discussing here the definition of "local authority" under Clause 20. We are discussing the words "local authority" as they will appear in the new Schedule, and these words in the Schedule will be defined by Clause 25. It will be the case, therefore, as I think the hon. Gentleman wishes, that where a general planning board in a National

Park runs a caravan site it will still have to obtain a site licence from the district council concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) was gratifyingly flattering in his references to the new Schedule. I hope that I have, in the main, met the points which he raised all through. He asked me, I think, whether, under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 5, the particulars should only go to the Minister and not to the planning authorities also. It would be our intention, by administrative action, to make certain that when we received particulars of a certificate issued by an organisation we conveyed that information to the local authority concerned. It is desirable that that should be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) asked whether a particular organisation in his constituency was likely to get exemption. I am sure that the House would not wish me to make any forecasts before the Bill is in operation, but I think it is fairly widely known what are the organisations which have exemptions at the present time under Section 269 of the 1936 Act. I am not to be taken as implying that each of those, and only those, will qualify for exemption under this Bill, but it is certainly some guide to the policy which previous Ministers have followed in the past. We had better look at each application on its merits.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), in this connection, asked whether Parliament and the public would be able to know which organisation received certificates. I do not think we need write anything of that kind into the Bill. I would certainly find some means of letting it be known, when the applications were being made, which were being accepted and approved. Again, if changes were made, we could probably find some means of making sure that those people concerned had the necessary information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) asked about hydro-electric schemes. I must say that I can see some difficulties about extending the exemption in paragraph 9 of the Schedule to caravans at a distance from the works without making the exemption altogether too


wide. This, however, is a new point—I do not think that it was mentioned in Standing Committee. Perhaps the Government could be given time to consider it further.
I should like to take this opportunity to say that, without doubt, some Amendments will come back to us from another place. Therefore, when I indicate in what I say that the matter will be considered further, it does not mean that I am simply trying to get away with that because the Government will resist any Amendments in another place. That is not so, and if I might bear out what I have just said, I would say that it has not been possible for the Government, by this stage of the Bill, to settle what we should do about caravans on common land—a question that was raised in Committee. That is something that must be looked at before the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
The hon. Member for Anglesey spoke to his Amendment, and to him I must say much the same as I said before. I confess that I had not envisaged just the type of case that he mentioned—a man living in a caravan while he is building a house, or getting a house built for him. I could not go so far as to say that we would accept that Amendment, but I shall certainly examine that matter and see whether there is any way in which we could cover that rather unusual case, which, however, might occur from time to time.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C.Thornton-Kemsley) asked about the reference in paragraph 8 to "a particular season" in the case of forestry operations. Those words appear in both paragraphs 7 and 8, because I think that it would be the general will of the House that there should not be a continuous exemption from licensing for what is really a permanent caravan colony. The idea is that when work is going on in an area, whether on a farm or in the forest, and it is not of a permanent character, it should be possible to have the people engaged on the job living in caravans for a time without the necessity of obtaining a licence.
The apprehensions that my hon. Friend voiced can be allayed. I do not think that he was seeking to argue that

there should be exemption from licensing if this was to be a permanent installation. It strikes me, although I shall certainly examine the point, which is a new one, that the words "during a particular season" should provide for the sort of contingency or local disaster that he has in mind.
I greatly appreciated what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) said. I know that he has great experience of these matters and is one of a number of hon. Members on both sides who have taken a great deal of interest in these exemptions. I want to express my appreciation of the help that the Government have had over this rather difficult and delicate matter—though, fortunately, it arouses no party feelings—and to thank the House again for the reception that has been given to the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 16, leave out from second "the" to end of Clause and insert:
Schedule (Cases where a caravan site licence is not required) to this Act and that Schedule shall have effect accordingly".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 3.—(ISSUE OF SITE LICENCES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, to leave out from "be" to the end of line 41 and to insert:
in writing and shall specify the land in respect of which the application is made; and the applicant shall, either at the time of making the application or subsequently, give to the local authority such particulars, set out in such form".
This Amendment defines somewhat more clearly the application for a site licence under Clause 3. The House will see that it is now required that the application should be in writing and should specify the land involved. It is now also set out clearly that the particulars that are submitted in compliance with my right hon. Friend's requirement as to the particulars that must be submitted when seeking a site licence can be submitted simultaneously with the application or at a later date. Some doubt was expressed in Standing Committee whether it was open to the applicant to submit the particulars separately from the application, and this Amendment makes it abundantly plain.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out subsection (3) and to insert:
(3) A local authority may on an application under this section issue a site licence in respect of the land if, and only if, the applicant is, at the time when the site licence is issued, entitled to the benefit of a permission for the use of the land as a caravan site granted under Part III of the Act of 1947 otherwise than by a development order, not being a permission granted in terms such that it will expire within a period of six months beginning with the date on which the application was made.
(4) If at the date when the applicant duly gives the particulars prescribed under subsection (2) of this section he is entitled to the benefit of such a permission as aforesaid, the local authority shall issue a site licence in respect of the land within two months of that date or, if the applicant and the local authority agree in writing that the local authority shall be afforded a longer period within which to grant a site licence, within the period so agreed.
(5) If the applicant becomes entitled to the benefit of such a permission as aforesaid at some time after duly giving the particulars prescribed under subsection (2) of this section the local authority shall issue a site licence in respect of the land within six weeks of the date on which he becomes so entitled or, if the applicant and the local authority agree in writing that the local authority shall be afforded a longer period within which to grant a site licence, within the period so agreed.
(6) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, a local authority shall not at any time issue a site licence to a person who to their knowledge has held a site licence which has been revoked in pursuance of the provisions of this Part of this Act less than three years before that time.
This Amendment involves several changes in Clause 3, which defines the obligation of local authorities to issue site licences. The Amendment seeks to make three changes. The first is consequential on the Amendment just accepted by the House. Subsection (3) in the Amendment sets out that the time that the local authorities have—a limited period—during which to issue site licences, will run not from the application but from the date when all the particulars have been submitted. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be unfair to expect local authorities to deal with the particulars even when they have not been submitted during the limited period of time.
I feel that the second change will also commend itself to the House. It is that it shall be open to both the applicant for the site licence and the local autho-

rity to agree a period longer than the six weeks or the two months, that still remain as the normal periods in the Clause. In the absence of any other agreement, the site licence must be issued within two months if planning permission was already held by the applicant and within six weeks if it had not been held but was received after the application.
The third alteration means that a loophole that evaded us in Committee has since been spotted and closed. The House will recollect that Clause 8 gives the local authority power in certain circumstances to revoke a site licence, but by the Bill as then drafted it would follow that it would be open to the occupier of the site whose site licence had been revoked to go to the local authority within an hour and, since he would still have planning permission, claim another site licence, and the local authority would have had no power to refuse it.
The new element in the proposed subsection (6) will empower the local authority not to issue a new site licence for three years after a revocation under Clause 8 has been carried out. I hope that these new subsections which in no way reduce the powers of the local authorities but only extend them and reconcile them with other changes in the Bill will be acceptable to the House.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: In my view, the Government have missed an opportunity in this Amendment. There is a fault here in the machinery of the Bill. The Bill divides the persons applying for site licences into two categories, namely, those who are entitled to the benefit of planning permission and those who are not so entitled. The fault in the Bill, which is perpetuated in the Amendment, is that no account is taken of a separate category altogether, namely, those who are now required by the Bill to apply for permission whereas, under the existing law, no permission is required. The Government deal with the matter by treating these people within the same category as those who are using land in contravention of planning permission, treating them as people not entitled to the benefit of permission. I suggest that this is an important matter. We are


introducing here just the kind of anomaly which, as we all know, has for long bedevilled the enforcement provisions of our town and country planning law.
It is important to recognise that the Bill extends planning control by making it necessary, under this Clause, to apply for planning permission in cases where, until now, no planning permission has been necessary—in cases, for instance,where there has been a use in existence from before 1948, in cases where there has been no material change in the use of land and for that reason planning permission until this point has not been necessary, and in cases where, under the provisions of the 1947 Act, there has been a contravening use but that contravening use has extended for more than four years and, therefore, the whole mechanism of enforcement under the 1947 Act has been ineffective against a user of land.
We have here an extension of planning control under cover of a licensing system. The people who, for the reasons I have suggested, needed no permission at all and those who escaped the effect of the enforcement provisions of the 1947 Act are brought by the Bill into the web and made to apply for planning permission. This is, therefore, an important extension of planning control under cover of a licensing system.
I should have thought that the proper way to deal with this was not the way adopted by the Government in the Amendment, but to provide that in cases where under the existing law no planning permission was necessary, either because there was no material change of use or because it was a pre-1947 Act use, the application should be confined to the local authority as a licensing authority and there should be no reference across to the local planning authority. That would have been an incomparably more tidy and more effective way administratively of achieving the purpose the Government have in mind.
The absurd consequences which may follow from the method adopted by the Government may be illustrated in this way. Let us suppose that we have a case where, under the existing law, there was no material change in the use of land and then, under Clause 3, applica-

tion is made to the local authority and referred across to the local planning authority. Let us suppose that the application for permission is turned down but the applicant continues the contravening use nevertheless. In those circumstances, there can be no effective enforcement against him under the law because, on this hypothesis, he can always successfully appeal to the Minister on the ground referred to in Clause 28 (1, c), namely, that no permission was required under Part III of the 1947 Act.
On the planning side of the matter, therefore, the refusal of planning permission has no practical effect at all because that ground of apppeal to the Minister can always be successfully followed. It is true, of course, that, although the planning enforcement provisions are not effective against an applicant of that kind, he can be effectively dealt with through the circumstance that, if he uses the land without a site licence, he is caught by the Clause 6 penalties; but the fact that that is so bears out, in my submission, the undesirability of this whole system. For heaven's sake, in cases where, until now, there has been no need to apply for permission because the proposed use of the land was not development under the 1947 Act, let that type of case be treated not as a case for planning control to which the enforcement provisions of the 1947 Act can have any application at all but simply as a thing apart, an application for a site licence.
In my submission, this is an important matter. I agree that there is a point about what is the appropriate mechanism, but, after all, this is the opportunity to put these things right. Perhaps of all the provisions of the Bill this is the provision which most clearly is the consequence of an attempt, which the Bill illustrates, to extend planning control by resort to a licensing system. I deplore the fact that the Government have not adopted the method I have ventured to recommend.

Mr. Graham Page: I support the warning given by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). We are here making a major alteration in planning law. If not in so many words, we are in fact depriving an owner of an established right. He has acquired a right to carry on a


caravan site by reason of the fact that he did so before 1948 or by reason of the fact that four years have elapsed since he started the development and no notice has been served on him. He has acquired a right in the land, but if the Bill goes through as it is now, he has acquired an empty right because, although he will have that assumed planning permission, he will yet, before he can have a site licence, have to apply for, as it were, confirmation of his existing right.
It is a little worse than that, because if he then applies under Part III of the 1947 Act for permission in order to have the backing to his application for a site licence, he may well be faced with Clause 17 of this Bill, under which directions can be added to that planning permission for running down the site and perhaps terminating it after a few years. It is certainly doubtful whether, in these circumstances, he would be entitled to any compensation for the damage which he would suffer from those directions being applied to his site.
I am sure that this matter has not been fully thought out in all its implications. It is an alteration in planning law, and it seems to me that it would have been a much simpler matter to leave the position in this way. A man who has an established right will apply for a site licence. He may assert that he had that established right, but the local authority might dispute that right. Then let the local authority test it by serving him with an enforcement notice. It would then be tested under the general Clauses of this Bill by appeal to the Minister. If the owner fails, he will have to put in for his planning permission, and conditions and directions can be attached to it, but if he succeeds in showing that he had an established right, he should be entitled to his site licence. I hope that this matter will receive more consideration at a later stage of the Bill.

Sir K. Joseph: This is a formidable combination of lawyers, and I will try to meet what they are claiming. It is quite true that there is a deliberate proposal to submit every existing site to planning survey. That is the intention, and it is achieved by a combination of Clauses 11 and 15. The existing sites, as defined in Clause 11, are deemed to

have had planning permission given to them six months after they have made application, within two months of the passage of this Bill, which exempts them from the consequences of Clause 1, if, during those six months, they have not either had planning permission or a discontinuance notice or an enforcement order. Surely, nobody would object to this. It brings the caravan sites of the country under the new control, and I cannot see that this provision, coupled with the consequential availability of the site licence in the Clause we are discussing, extends planning control or removes any safeguards from occupiers.
The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) spoke as if it were automatic to establish whether or not any particular occupier has or had existing use rights. This is a very complex matter of fact and law which is surely, above all, appropriate for the local planning authority rather than the local authority. It is arguments of planning and relevant to planning that the occupier will adduce in order to show that he has existing use rights, and those arguments, it seems to me, would not be appropriate for decision by the local authority, but should go to the local planning authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is quite right in saying that the local planning authority can test its judgment by taking out an enforcement notice, and against an enforcement notice the person concerned can appeal and go before my right hon. Friend.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It may well occur—may it not?—in the case which he is giving as an illustration, that the local planning authority would come to the conclusion that the use proposed was not one requiring permission under the existing law. It would, therefore, determine the matter by saying, "We have no jurisdiction to grant permission". I put that point to the hon. Gentleman, because it seems to me that, when that occurs, there is stalemate. The local authority cannot issue a site licence without prior permission, and yet the local planning authority is saying, "We have no jurisdiction to grant permission, because this is not a use which required permission under the 1947 Act".

6.15 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: But the local planning authority can give permission on planning grounds. Even if it decides that the site did not have existing use rights, it is open to the local planning authority to say, "Nevertheless, we will give you planning permission". So far as I can see, if no existing use rights are claimed, the site can be treated in one of these three ways. It must either be given specific planning permission, whether or not it had a right to that permission under the previous law, or it must be treated by enforcement notice or by discontinuance order.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am greatly obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. Will he deal with this point? On that view of the matter, what can be the relevance of this to the provisions in Clause 28 (1, c), which make it a ground of appeal that no permission is required under Part III of the 1947 Act?

Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Clause 28 (2), he will see that my right hon. Friend is obliged to consider any appeal as—
an application for permission for retention on the land of any buildings or works, or for the continuance of any use of the land.
He cannot, therefore, just consider the sort of technical point raised in paragraphs (b) to (e) inclusive, without at the same time considering the planning aspects.
I hope, therefore, that I have established that the Clause we are discussing does not in any way change the general planning position. It does establish what I think is agreed on all sides as the very heart of the Bill—that anyone who has planning permission shall be entitled to a site licence. All that it does it to define precisely the obligations of the local authority as to the time in providing that site licence.

Amendment agreed to

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(2) If after a site licence is issued the terms of the said permission are varied by the Minister on an appeal under section sixteen of the Act of 1947, the local authority who issued the licence shall make in the site licence any alteration required to secure that its terms comply with the provisions of the foregoing subsection.
This is a very limited point The House will see that Clause 4 deals

especially with site licences for sites which have limited planning permission. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) said, it is the intention of the Government that these should be comparatively rare and only for special reasons, but where there is a limited time planning permission, the site licence must also, by Clause 4, have a limited time. It is open to my right hon. Friend to vary that limitation of time in planning permission by appeal, and in that case it follows that the site licence would need the limitation of time altering or removing. Since the limitation of time in the site licence is integral with the site licence, and not just a condition which may be altered by the local authority under Clause 7, it is necessary that there should be specific power for the time limit in the site licence to be removed. That is just what this Amendment seeks to do. I hope the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40 to leave out "or any other feature".
These words were discussed in Committee and were mentioned particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). Replying to that debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister said that he would consider the point, but I notice that he has not put down a Government Amendment. Therefore, I have tabled the Amendment to leave out these words because it was felt that subsection (2), which controls the types of caravans which will be stationed on any land, might well refer to the constructional standards of the caravans.
Hon. Members will recollect that when the Bill was first introduced, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) contained a reference to constructional standards. That reference was taken out in Committee. I understand it to be my right hon. Friend's intention to have consultations with the organisations concerned to arrive at a British Standard of construction for caravans.
No reference now exists anywhere in the Bill to constructional standards, but by reason of the words "or any other feature" it might well be that local authorities would seek to gain control


over constructional standards by backdoor methods. It might be that a local councillor, or indeed a local council, quite rightly expressing their individuality, might decide on a certain type of ventilation for caravans in their area. I give this by way of example. They might be, right in specifying that all caravans in their area should use that type of ventilation.
Caravans necessarily are structures which move about the country. They are interchangeable as between one local authority area and another. They might well have a very satisfactory means of ventilation in accordance with the bye-laws of a certain area, but it might not be the same means of ventilation as was approved by the byelaws of a council into whose area it was sought to go. Therefore, they would be excluded from occupying a position in such an area.
Equally, if these words are retained, a council in its wisdom might specify that all the caravans in its area should be painted a certain colour of green, whereas in a different part of the country the same colour might be offensive or not desirable. I merely quote these as examples of the control which could be applied by councils if these words are not deleted.
I wish also to draw attention generally to the subsection. The object of the words "or any other feature" and the words preceding them in brackets is, presumably, to define or amplify the word "types". In Committee, my right hon. Friend said that he required this reference to.
their size, the state of their repair or any other feature
because he wanted to make it impossible for old bus bodies and the like to be put on caravan sites and to remain there.
If my right hon. Friend does not like my Amendment, he might consider eliminating all the words within the brackets. Paragraph (b) would then read:
for controlling the types of caravan …
I feel from our discussions in Committee that that is the state of affairs which my right hon. Friend wants to achieve. He wants control by the local authorities of the types of caravan. Therefore, why not leave the paragraph as I have indicated and delete the words "or any other feature", which may well be ambiguous?

I paid a considerable tribute to the Parliamentary draftsmen when speaking earlier concerning the Schedule. I cannot repeat that tribute on this occasion, because the subsection merely leads to a great many anomalies and ambiguities. It is for these and other related reasons that I seek to leave out these words so as to bring clarification to this Part of the Bill.

Mr. Short: I support the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in his Amendment. In the original draft, the Minister's object was commendable. He obviously wished to exclude from caravan sites old bus bodies, the sort of things which disfigure large areas of the coastline in my county.I described them on Second Reading. In many cases, they are structures built round an original four-wheeled horse-drawn caravan which was put there perhaps forty or fifty years ago and has now developed into a bungalow built around the central core. Buses are still being sold and converted into caravans.They are not mobile. They cannot be moved for winter storage and they become permanent structures which deteriorate rapidly.
I quite understand that the Minister did not wish to give local authorities the power to impose structural standards throughout the country; that was never his intention. He did, however, wish to control this sort of thing. By the original draft of the Bill, the caravan manufacturers were quite rightly led to fear that they might have to build different types of caravans with different colours, and so on, to satisfy different licensing authorities.
We now have in the Bill the words "or any other feature". I agree with the hon. Member for the City of Chester that the danger still remains. Local authorities, licensing authorities and district councils who issue the licences can still control any other features and so place a quite ridiculous burden on the caravan industry and make touring from one district to another quite impossible. I can well imagine that some local authorities would do this sort of thing.
As I have said before, I am a caravanner and I take an interest in what people say about the caravanning fraternity. From comments which I have read about the colours of caravans, and so


on, I can well imagine that some local authorities would try to impose their own ideas about colour and, as the hon. Member suggested, ventilation, built-in water tanks, window space and the like, but particularly colour. I have always believed that the light-coloured caravan can be made a pleasant feature of the countryside. As I said on Second Reading, one of the pleasantest features of some parts of the country, particularly the North Country, is the whitewashed cottage, and I see no reason why a cream or white van should not be integrated into the countryside in the same way as a whitewashed cottage. However, many local councillors do not agree with this. Through the words "or any other feature", they could place upon the caravan industry a quite unnecessary burden.
As I have pointed out before, the caravan industry not only satisfies this great, new recreation in which so many people indulge, but it is becoming an important export industry also. If this burden were to be laid upon it, it would add to the difficulties that the industry will experience because of the divided Europe.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. On 5th May, he promised to think about it again, but the anomaly has not been cleared up. The danger still remains and the alarm and uncertainty most certainly remain in the caravan manufacturing industry. I hope, therefore, that the Minister, even if he will not commit himself now, will think about the matter again.

Mr. H. Brooke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) that the question of standards of construction for caravans can be dealt with satisfactorily only on a national basis. Clearly, it would be wrong for local authorities to try to lay down standards of construction or design for caravans by licence conditions. I submit, however, that we should not get what we all want by accepting the Amendment.
6.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend suggested that all the words within the brackets might be left out. If we did that, we would find that we would be right back in the situation which he desires to avoid. It would not

help him in any way. It is necessary that there should be something in the Bill which makes quite clear that a local authority can, by site licence conditions, prevent old vans, such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) has spoken of, old caravans as well as old bus bodies and the like, from being put upon caravan sites, and I am advised that if we were to accept this Amendment and leave out the words "or any other feature" that fact would not be established, because it would not be possible "by reference to their size" and "the state of their repair" to be certain that an authority could exclude that kind of creature from a caravan site. It is to make certain that the local authority will have the power to exclude structures of that sort that I must advise the House that we should keep in these words "or any other feature".
However, what I certainly will do—and I hope the House will approve of this—is undertake to advise local authorities, in the circular which, of course, I shall be sending out to all local authorities in due course when the Bill comes into operation, that it would be quite wrong of them to seek by licence conditions to lay down standards of construction or design for caravans.
Moreover, there will be no encouragement whatever to them to do that in the model standards. The House will recollect that there is an appeal against site licence conditions to the magistrates and that not only the local authority but also the magistrates will be under a statutory duty, if the Bill becomes law, to have regard to the model standards.
I hope that what I have said will satisfy my hon. Friend, or, if it does not completely satisfy him, will induce him to be willing not to press his Amendment, because I have considered this as carefully as I can, I have taken advice upon it, and I really must say that I do not think that the purpose all of us have would be furthered if we were to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Temple: I feel at one with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend, although I still do not feel that those sentiments are adequately expressed by this subsection; but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, after "licence" to insert:
as for the time being in force".
The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. It is merely to make clear that where the terms or conditions of a site licence are altered the alterations are carried into the copy of the licence which is displayed on the site. The House will remember that we have already accepted a new Clause which provides machinery for enabling the local authority to make the necessary alterations in the original of the licence. It is quite clear that when the terms or conditions are altered the alteration must be carried into the copy of the licence which is displayed on the site.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end to insert:
(6) Works carried out on any land for the purpose of complying with a condition attached to a site licence shall be deemed not to be improvements for the purposes of section fourteen of the Crofters (Scotland) Act. 1955 (which relates to the payment of compensation for improvements when a crofter renounces his tenancy or is removed from his croft.
Each year more and more of the tourists whom we welcome to Scotland come by caravan, and, indeed, an important part of the Scottish Tourist Board's plan for the development of tourism in the Highlands concerns the provision of caravan parks. As hon. Members will know, crofters in the crofting counties have played a very considerable part in providing facilities for the tourists. They provide bed and breakfast and lodging, and so on. This now plays quite an important economic part in the life of the seven crofting counties, but an important question, and a difficult one, arises from this.
Under the crofting Acts, a crofter normally provides all the fixed equipment on the croft or takes it over from his predecessor. The landlord receives rent for the value of the land alone, that is, the value of the land without the buildings. Under Section 14 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, he pays compensation to the outgoing crofter for such improvements as he may have made to the croft. I presume that caravan site installations will be regarded as

improvements of the croft and thus rank for compensation.
While it is right to encourage the development of caravan facilities in this beautiful part of Scotland, and also to support the enterprising crofter, it seems unjust that the cost of caravan installations, which have nothing to do with the agricultural use of the land, should rank for compensation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will take a sympathetic view of this Amendment.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State has no intention whatever of accepting this Amendment. The sponsors of it, I notice, all represent constituencies outside the crofting counties, and I notice, too, that they are headed by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). During all my time in the House of Commons I have never ceased to be amazed at the manner in which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns puts forward the case for the landowners. Quite obviously, this is an Amendment which has been thought up by the landowners in Scotland and by nobody else.
Anybody who has had experience of the Highlands during the last two or three years knows that quite a number of landowners in the north of Scotland are not very anxious for the crofters to follow the advice which has bean given to them both by the Crofters Commission and by the Tourist Board. I have met a number of instances in the Highlands in which considerable obstacles have been put in the way of people trying to provide facilities which the Crofters Commission has said they should provide. The Crofters Commission last year made a special feature of trying to persuade crofters to increase their income to a four-figure level by the provision of chalets and by the provision of sites for caravans and by the provision of caravans.
What is the position of the average crofter? This year, the Crofters Commission tells us that of the 20,000, approximately, registered crofts some 13,000 or 14,000 are not viable. As we all know, the crofter does not make a living off the croft. In nine cases out of ten he fishes or, as he has in more


recent years, works on hydro-electric schemes or at Dounreay or on some other project. The croft does not provide a living, and the crofter must engage in an auxiliary occupation.
The provision of the facilities suggested adds to the value of the croft in enabling the crofter to make a living from the croft. Why should not the landowner pay the compensation in the usual manner for the improvements that have been made by the crofter to enable him to make the croft viable? I can see no argument against that and I should have thought that Section 14 (4) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act itself prevented any form of abuse, because it states:
An improvement shall be valued under this Act at such sum as fairly represents the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant.

Mr. MacArthur: Whether or not an incoming tenant can be found.

Mr. Willis: The fact is that it is of no value unless it is of value to an incoming tenant. In other words, it must be of value in making the croft more able to support the crofter, and surely that is what we want to do. Almost the whole of the Crofters Commission's Report is devoted to the problem of enabling the croft to be viable. If the hon. Member has read that Report he will know that that is true. The Commission itself has suggested previously, with the support of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Tourist Board, that one of the ways to, do this is to allow the crofter to make provision for caravans, and, in fact, to provide them himself.
Anyone who has visited the area and seen the crofter doing this knows that it helps considerably. I cannot see why improvements made to the croft to enable this to be done should not be compensated for in the same way as are other improvements. They are fixtures which improve the value of the croft and are quite distinct from things like implements. They have improved the value of the croft. The landowner has something which is worth more to him than it was previously.
If we are frank about it, the only answer is that a considerable number of landowners do not want the Highlands to be cluttered with caravans. The land

owners hold up most of the ideas put forward for making the Highlands viable. The very men who ought to have given the lead in obtaining the amenities and services necessary to do this have often been passive opponents. The Amendment is another more in that direction, and that is why it is sponsored by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will not listen to the appeal and will reject the Amendment.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has repeated the charge, which was levelled earlier today by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that I am in the habit of speaking in the House for landlords, and for Scottish landlords in particular. I have no criticism to make about that and I am not ashamed of speaking in this place for landlords. This Commons House of Parliament is a place where every interest ought to be represented and represented fairly, and not least the interest of the minority.
6.45 p.m.
I ask the House to consider the position of the crofting landlord in the circumstances covered by the Amendment. He has let the croft many years ago, long before the days of tourism, to an agricultural tenant and has taken for it a rent representing the unimproved value of the land. But we have had the Report of the Crofters Commission, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred, and we have had the growing realisation of the advantages of the western Highlands, the crofting counties, as places for camping and caravanning.
I myself enjoy going to these places every year. Last year I went to Arisaig and Morar, and the year before to Lochinver and Achmelvig Bay, and I enjoy visiting places with such lovely names as Melanudrigal and Achiltibuie. At all these places there were crofts Where caravans were welcomed in the summer months.
It may be that the crofter will want to make some so-called improvements, perhaps to the approach road, or will want to install hard standings and provide a water point. Then the landlord


is required by the provisions of the Bill to pay for these so-called improvements on the basis that they are of value to incoming tenants. But very often in derelict crofting communities there are no incoming tenants and it is possible for the landlord to have to take on the liability of the croft and pay compensation.
There may not be another tenant, but the landlord has to pay such a sum as represents the value of the so-called improvements to an incoming tenant. We say that the landlord who lets the croft for farming purposes ought not to he required by Statute to pay compensation if the land has been let for some other purpose and expenditure has been undertaken to make the croft into a caravan site. That is a matter for the tenant if he wishes to do it.
It may well make the croft more valuable to the crofter as a viable proposition, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East recognised. Good luck to him. Let him pay the money and take the rent of 2s. 6d. a month or whatever he wishes to charge from the caravanners, and let him sell milk to people who stay on the croft. The charge ought not to fall on the landlord who lets the land as an agricultural proposition. He ought not to he required by Statute to pay compensation in respect of non-agricultural purposes.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I am more surprised than I can say that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) should have made this plea. I should have thought that the improvements made under the Bill for the purpose of developing a caravan site on a croft would be small and that the amount of compensation, if it ever arose, would not be very much. I should have thought that there was not much to fear from the compensation that might be payable, but if it were a considerable sum there must have been considerable expenditure of money by the crofter in the first place in making the improvements.
Surely all of us believe that improvements of this kind are most likely to endure and that tourism will increase and not decrease. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) made his first speech in the House on this very subject of developing

tourism in the Highlands. I should have thought that he, of all people, would have envisaged that in the years that he ahead any sum of money spent on the development of amenities like caravan sites would prove to be money well invested.
The person concerned is the humble crofter, the person who probably has the lowest income of any category of worker, and a person who follows a basically agricultural pursuit which nobody believes gives him a livelihood. During the passage of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, the House recognised that and said that the crofter must be encouraged to augment his income by turning to other things.
The Crofters Commission has been beseeching the crofters to turn to tourism. They have been asked to supply the needs of tourists visiting the North of Scotland. They have been asked to provide tourists with sleeping accommodation, to grow additional crops to provide food for the tourists, and to provide them with caravan sites.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite can hardly say that they support the Crofters Commission in the pleas it makes to the crofters in the north of Scotland if, at the same time, they say that the landowner who has never spent a penny on the land—he has not been responsible for any of the improvements; he has not built a croft, a shed, the steading, a road or done anything at all—should continue to draw his rent and not pay compensation. The landlord does not drain the land or fence it, yet he draws his rent without having been responsible for any of the improvements.
Under the conditions of the Bill the crofter is required to spend money on improvements before he can get a licence. Why do hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the poor crofter who is doing something to help attract tourists to the Highlands should not be paid compensation if he ever has occasion to renounce his croft? Suppose that the husband dies. If the widow renounces the croft and the landowner takes it back, as he is obliged to do, and pays compensation for other improvements, why should these improvements, which have been ordered by the local authority to attract tourists, be taken over gratis by the landowner? Why should he be entitled to benefit when


he finds another tenant, or perhaps uses the land himself for the same purpose as it was being used before? That seems to me to be so inequitable that I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward such a proposition. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, if he does not agree with what I have said, will at least agree with the attitude that I have adopted and will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will give short shrift to his hon. Friend. Not long ago we read in the newspapers that Sir Hugh Fraser of the Scottish Tourist Board addressed Tory Members of Parliament. I wonder whether the Amendment was tabled as a result of that meeting.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said that he would not apologise for speaking for that oppressed minority in Scotland, the landowners. If there is one thing that the landowners of Scotland do not need it is a spokesman from the Government back benches; they have plenty of them on the Front Bench opposite. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have profited from the treatment given to earlier Amendments in his name and would have decided to resign himself to fight for Scottish landowners at some date in the future.
When one considers that Sir Hugh Fraser is concerned about the future of the Highlands, that the present Government were so concerned about the crofters that they passed the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, establishing the crofters' Commission and that it was proclaimed that that was the last chance for the crofter and his way of life, I should have thought that the only thing that one could possibly do would be to encourage the crofter. This is what the Secretary of State for Scotland has been doing. Only two years ago he produced a White Paper on tourism in the Highlands. He spoke of the great new chance for the Highlands and asked crofters to go out of their way to help the tourist industry.
What were hon. Gentlemen opposite thinking of when they put their names

to the Amendment? There is not a single Tory Member from the crofter counties who has the courage to call himself a Tory. They all call themselves National Liberals because the word Tory in Scotland is almost synonymous with landowner, certainly in the Highland areas. Where are the Tory Members? If they believe in the things that they had said about the importance of the crofter, why are they not in their places to oppose the Amendment?
Let us consider the hon. Gentleman's speech. What it amounts to is that he does not like Section 14 of the 1955 Act. The only question asked has been what will happen if there is no incoming tenant. But that objection applies to the whole of Section 14 of the original Act and to any improvements that have been carried out. Surely hon. Gentlement appreciate that if an improvement is made there is more likely to be an incoming tenant. Indeed, no crofter that I know of will spend money on improving a croft to handle caravans without the prospect of being able to do so being more than just a possibility.
The crofters are improving the crofts. If the arguments of the hon. Gentleman are valid he has nothing to worry about. Surely he has read the relevant Section which says:
When a crofter renounces his tenancy or is removed from his croft"—
the circumstances of his removal were not discussed by the hon. Gentleman but that does not mean that there will be no incoming tenant if he is forcibly removed—
he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to compensation for any permanent improvement made on the croft if:
(a) the improvement is suitable to the croft …"
It is no use the hon. Gentleman referring to that Statute which clearly talks about compensation if the improvement is suitable to the croft and then using the kind of language which he used in arguing his case, because he talked about "so-called improvements". If they are only so-called improvements he need not worry about them, because compensation can be paid only if the improvement is suitable to the croft.


7.0 p.m.
I sincerely hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will not only reject the Amendment but will spurn it. If there is to be any real hope for the Highlands and the crofters they must have ancillary occupations, as the hon. Member knows. I have not always been glad that he is one of those in charge of the Bill, but he is right in his own field now, because he is Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and as such is responsible for agriculture in the Highlands, and for the crofters. He will remember the words on page 58 of his Report, namely:
Suitable developments which will contribute to the diversification of rural employment or to the economic use of local resources are encouraged.
That concerns the very problem of which we are now talking.
On the question of providing caravans, I hope that the hon. Member will think twice before being again misled by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. We all want to see this problem eased, and it can be eased by the extension of mobile caravans in the north of Scotland. The last thing we want to do is to discourage them, and as the Amendment is intended to discourage them, we should not accept it. What interests me is the reason why the hon. Member wishes to discourage them. I believe it is because many Scottish landowners merely want the land to themselves and do not want to see crofters or anybody else in that part of the world.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I hope that I shall be able to reply to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) without necessarily following the advice of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Ross: Go on—be a devil.

Mr. Leburn: For the purposes of the record I should not like it to go down that the Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that works carried out on any land for the purpose of complying with

a condition attached to a site licence shall not rank as an improvement on which compensation is payable to the outgoing crofter under Section 14 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955. I appreciate the point made by both my hon. Friends, but before saying anything else I would make the point that the Government and all those who have spoken welcome the development of tourism in the Highlands. We all want to support that development, and we hope that the crofters will share in the fruits which that development may bring in its train. Crofters have always had an interest in the tourist trade, but until recently it has been mainly restricted to the question of the bed and breakfast business. There is now an expansion of the tourist trade, which is proceeding at a very fast rate. We all welcome it, but it has undoubtedly brought with it a complicated question of the crofters' right to compensation.
This has been recognised by the Crofters Commission in its latest Annual Report, in which it says that the question of compensation for such improvements is linked with the question of rent. In tourism, this question goes beyond the limited one of caravan sites, which is the subject of the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) pointed out, it can also raise the question of permanent chalets, and so on. But even within the confines of the question of caravan sites there can be complications, if water supplies are installed or roadways constructed. It would be a little difficult to decide how much was applicable to the crofter and his domestic needs and how much to the caravan site.
Another complication which seems likely to arise stems from the fact that as the Amendment is now worded it would apply only to those sites for which a site licence had been granted. But there may be other types of site which are exempted. This lends emphasis to the point that the general subject of compensation is one for wider consideration than can be given to it in the context of the Bill. In other words, if this question is to be considered at all it should be considered in connection with crofting legislation.
As I have said, in its Annual Report the Crofters Commission made various


broad proposals for amending legislation, and these will be considered carefully by the Government in due course. It seems to be more appropriate that the question raised by the Amendment should be considered—and I say this without making any commitment—at a time when we are dealing with crofters. With that explanation I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that this is not an appropriate Amendment for the Bill, and will agree to withdraw it.

Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and for his sympathetic and kindly comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5.—(FAILURE BY LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SITE LICENCE.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 3, leave out "specified therefor in" and insert:
within which they are required to issue a site licence by".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 6.—(APPEAL TO MAGISTRATES' COURT AGAINST CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO SITE LICENCE.)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, to leave out "aggrieved" and to insert "affected".
The courts have indicated from time to time their dislike of the expression "aggrieved" in Acts of Parliament, and in the case of Jones v. Ealing Corporation, which was heard last year, the Lord Chief Justice directed observations to this word. He said:
Coming, therefore, to the second question, whether the local planning authority could be said to be aggrieved in the present case, I would like to make two general observations. First, I would like to voice a protest that Parliament continues to allow this expression to come into Act after Act of Parliament.
He went on to refer to previous criticisms which Lord Hewart had made in 1929 when he was Lord Chief Justice, and he added:
Notwithstanding that, the words continued to creep in after that date and continue to do so today. This is another case where Parliament has failed to make clear what was really intended by those words.

In the light of observations of that kind, I suggest that it is very desirable that we should consider whether we should make any further use of the expression. Recent cases on this point, in planning law, have dealt with the issue whether or not the local planning authority can be a person aggrieved. I acknowledge that that question is not likely to arise under the Clause. None the less, the criticism from which I have quoted goes wider than that. It is obviously very desirable and important that there should be harmony between the viewpoints of Parliament and the judiciary on a matter of this kind. The word "aggrieved" is ambiguous in its character and content. The word "affected" goes wider, but I suggest that it escapes all the ambiguity.

Mr. H. Brooke: Not being a lawyer, I hesitate to cross swords with the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) on a matter which has arisen in this way, but since he said that the word "aggrieved" had attracted criticism on the ground of ambiguity I would ask him to examine the whole of the subsection, because I think he will find that no ambiguity is possible. He will see the words
a site licence has been issued to him …
There can be no ambiguity about that. The site licence is issued to a certain individual, and no one but that individual can be referred to by the rest of the subsection.
A person
affected by a condition … subject to which a site licence has been issued to him 
seems almost meaningless. He will clearly be affected, but he will wish to appeal only if he is aggrieved. I therefore submit that the fact that the words "issued to him" remove all possibility of ambiguity, the proper verb in this circumstance is "aggrieved".

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, it is true that a word so severely criticised is now occurring in another Act of Parliament, and it is with some reluctance that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15.—(EXISTING CARAVAN SITES NOT CONVERED BY PERMISSION GRANTED ON AN APPLICATION: MODIFICATION OF PLANNING CONTROL.)

Amendments made: In page 10, line 16, leave out from "allow" to "subsection" in line 17 and insert:
other than an application in respect of a site which has at the date of the application the benefit of a permission for the use of the land of the kind described in".

In line 18, leave out from "Act" to end of line 19.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 17.—(CONDITIONS TO SECURE TERMINATION OF USE OF EXISTING SITE.)

7.15 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 12, line 39, after "terminating", to insert "in due course".
This is a small point and our desire is to clear up a possible doubt which may arise.
The Clause deals with the provisions to cover the running down of sites and with the circumstances of a condition attached that the use of a site as a caravan site shall be "terminated in due course." That is the expression used in subsection (1). Subsection (4) provides that it shall not be a ground of appeal that the condition attached to the licence is unduly onerous in that the condition has the effect of terminating its use. In that subsection, there is no repetition of the words "in due course "
It is possible that the contrast between the two expressions may be thought to have rather wider consequences than the Government intend. What I think the Government have in mind is that in cases of this kind it shall not be open to an appellant to say that it is unduly burdensome upon him that the condition provides that the use of the site shall be terminated in due course. I think the Government intend that within that limit there can be an appeal. In other words, if the date proposed for the termination of the use is a specific date and is thought to be too near at hand, or not to provide for a sufficiently long interval, I think that the intention is that the choice of date should be appealable and open to argument.
We have put forward the Amendment because we think that there is just a chance that if the wording is left as it

is, the contrast between the words "terminating its use" in subsection (4) and the words "terminated in due course", which appear twice earlier in the Clause, may be thought to carry the sense that it should not be open to argument on appeal that the date mentioned in the direction was a date which did not give sufficient time to the appellant.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend feels that the proposed words are unnecessary because subsection (4) is entirely governed by subsection (3), in which the conditions are limited to those connected with the termination in due course of the caravan site. The word "terminated", therefore, is amply qualified in the way required, but it seems to my right hon. Friend that there can be no harm in repeating the words.
In advising the House to accept the Amendment, I stress that, under the Clause as drafted and as amended, magistrates will have power to vary a condition on the ground that it would terminate the use of the site at once, or too abruptly. That is already the position and will remain the position if the Amendment is accepted, but since it does no harm, I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 12, line 46, at the end to insert:
(5) Except as provided by the foregoing provisions of this section no conditions shall be attached to any site licence for an existing site for the purpose of securing that its use as a caravan site will be terminated in due course but nothing in this subsection shall prevent a local planning authority, if of opinion that the use of an existing site as a caravan site should be terminated in due course, from exercising their powers under section twenty-six of the Act of 1947.
In the earlier Clauses, it has been made clear that an applicant for a site licence requires specific planning permission, even though he may have an established right and even though there may be an existing site being used as a caravan site. In fact, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the whole intention was that every existing site should be subjected to a survey.
The Clause deals with existing sites and with the case where a local authority desires to run down existing sites and eventually to terminate them as caravan sites. Such sites may have already been


substantially developed as caravan sites and considerable money spent on developing them. The power of a local authority by a site licence to run down sites and eventually to terminate them leaves the owner of the site without an appeal to the magistrates. Subsection (4) prevents an appeal on those grounds.
Therefore, in the earlier subsections there is a restriction on the local authorities' power that they must not put those conditions into the site licence unless there are directions to that effect in the planning permission. Those directions are described in subsection (1) in these words:
may issue with the permission a direction.
It is not clear whether a planning permission issued with directions is the same as a discontinuance order under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but undoubtedly it will have the same eventual effect. The directions will be directions that in due course a site will cease to be a caravan site. Therefore, the owner is deprived of an established right and of something which he has acquired over a time and which is of value, but deprived of it not by a discontinuance order under Section 26 but by directions attached to a planning permission plus conditions in a site licence.
If it were done clearly by a discontinuance order under Section 26, then Section 27 of the 1947 Act would come into play and the site owner would be entitled to claim compensation, if he had suffered loss by reason of the use being discontinued. But mere directions attached to a planning permission obviously do not come within the words of Section 27 and would not give him the right to claim compensation, even though he had suffered severe loss.
It is the intention of the Amendment to make sure that in those conditions an owner will be entitled to claim compensation if he has suffered loss. It is only fair that the man who has an established right, and who would in the ordinary way, if he were ordered to discontinue the use under existing planning law, have the right to compensation, should not be deprived of that right by some form of procedure and the use of

directions instead of a discontinuance order.

Mr. H. Brooke: I understand the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I hope that I can still them. He and I and probably the whole House are at one in what we want to do. Clause 17 does not and cannot apply to an existing use which has unlimited planning permission, or which is entitled to unlimited planning permission because of its existing use rights. If a planning authority wishes to close down a site which has an unlimited planning permission, then its proper course is to do so by means of a Section 26 order with the appropriate compensation. It cannot on the sly, as it were, use Clause 17 for the purpose.
Clause 17 makes it abundantly clear that requiring a further reduction in order to terminate the use of a site may be imposed only in the circumstances which are described in the Clause, that is, where a short-term planning permission has been granted expressly for that purpose. Nothing in Clause 17 in any way affects the power of a local authority at any time to require the use of an existing site to be terminated by means of a Section 26 order.
The Clause will operate only in a situation where a site needs to be run down, and the owner of the site will have had his opportunity to establish his case for compensation if he has had an unlimited planning permission. In those circumstances of a short-term planning permission, directions such as those described in subsection (1) may be given so as to enable the site to be run down, without hardship to the people on the site.
I trust that my explanation has been clear. I have examined the Clause as carefully as I can and I am advised and I believe that there can be no dubiety about its meaning. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I am advised that it is not necessary to add the subsection in order to secure it.

Mr. Graham Page: Having regard to my right hon. Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE SITES FOR CARAVANS.)

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 13, line 18 after "power", to insert "within their area".
The Amendment fulfils a pledge which I gave in Committee, that the Bill would not empower local authorities to provide caravan sites outside their areas. I hope that it will be acceptable.

Mr. Short: We welcome the Amendment. It is fair that local authorities who intend to establish sites should be limited to their own areas. There still remains the problem of the planning board, but I have thought over the earlier explanation which the Minister gave me and I think that it is clear that I was wrong and that he was right and that a planning board establishing a local authority in a district council, or within its area, would require a site licence from the district council. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that it is the case that I was wrong and he was right in that respect.

Mr. Brooke: That is the case.

Amendment agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT

7.30 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act, 1960.
2. Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act, 1960.
3. Population (Statistics) Act, 1960.
4. Indecency with Children Act, 1960.
5. Radioactive Substances Act, 1960.
6. International Development Association Act, 1960.
7. Game Laws (Amendment) Act, 1960.

8. Payment of Wages Act, 1960.
9. Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960.
10. Dock Workers (Pensions) Act, 1960.
11. Commonwealth Teachers Act, 1960.
12. Ghana (Consequential Provision) Act, 1960.
13. Merchant Shipping (Minicoy Lighthouse) Act, 1960.
14. Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960.
15. Bromley College and other Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1960
16. Chipping Sodbury Town Trust Scheme Confirmation Act, 1960.
17. United Charities of Nathaniel Waterhouse, and other Charities (Halifax) Scheme Confirmation Act, 1960.
18. Scottish American Investment Company Limited Order Conmation Act, 1960.
19. Northampton County Council Act, 1960.
20. Saint Martin's Parish Church Birmingham Act, 1960.
21. London and Surrey (River Wandle and River Graveney) (Jurisdiction) Act, 1960.
22. Derbyshire County Council Act, 1960.
23. Cornwall County Council Act, 1960.
24. Saint Peter Upper Thames Street Churchyard Act, 1960.
25. Bala to Trawsfynydd Highways (Liverpool Corporation Contribution) Act, 1960.
26. Royal Exchange Assurance Act, 1960.
27. Saint Peter's Church Nottingham (Broad Marsh Burial Ground) Act, 1960.
28. Royal College of Physicians of London Act, 1960.
29. Saint Stephen Bristol (Burial Grounds etc.) Act, 1960.

Orders of the Day — CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Clause 20.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE SITES FOR CARAVANS.)

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 14, line 17, at the end to insert:
for an area which consists of or includes a National Park as defined by subsection (3) of section five of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, or any part of such a National Park .
This Clause gives local authorities power to provide caravan sites. Subsection (8), to which I seek to add these words, extends the meaning of the words "local authority" to include a county council and a joint planning board. There was discussion on this point in Committee and, with the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations, I moved that subsection (8) should be excluded. I believe that my right hon. Friend is in favour of an Amendment such as I am seeking to make.
The effect of the Amendment would be that county councils would still be able to exercise these powers but that a limitation would be placed upon the powers of joint planning boards, and joint planning boards would be able to provide and operate caravan sites only in National Parks in the same way as they have powers under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.
I appreciate that hon. Members may think that the addition of these words at present is not necessary because there are no joint planning boards outside the National Parks, but the Local Government Act, 1958, made provision for a wide extension of joint planning boards, and it may be that, as a result of the Local Government Commission, joint planning boards will be introduced to exercise planning powers over the special review areas or the conurbation areas, as they are commonly known.
It is for that reason, and believing that it will not be in the best interests of all concerned for the power to be exercised by joint planning boards, having planning powers over an area which may comprise five or six county boroughs and a

similar number of urban district councils, that I move the Amendment to restrict the definition in the Clause to county councils and to joint planning boards which have power in all or part of a National Park.

Mr. Short: I should like to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). I have always had some doubt about giving joint planning boards this power. I believe that there is a case for it in respect of National Parks, but if other joint planning boards emerged I should be very doubtful about giving them all power to do this. Often there are rivalries between district councils and joint planning boards, and we do not want to do anything which may make them worse. I think that if we limit this power to joint planning boards in National Parks it might meet any fears about the future.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am glad to advise the House to accept the Amendment so clearly described by my hon. Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. Wakefield: I beg to move, in line 17, at the end to insert:
(9) This section extends to the administrative county of London and the expression "local authority" in this section as so extended includes the council of a metropolitan borough.
Earlier this afternoon the House excluded London from Part I of the Bill. I now ask that the administrative county of London be included in Clause 20. The administrative county of London has not authority under the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1959, to utilise the power under Clause 20—that of local authorities to provide sites for caravans. I hope that the Amendment is agreeable to the Government and the House. It will be seen that subsection (8) seeks to extend the definition of local authority by including
the council of a county and a joint planning board.
This Amendment seeks at the same time to include the administrative county of London.

Mr. H. Brooke: Following the new Clause which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) moved earlier and which the House accepted, I think that it would be appropriate to make this Amendment. I


imagine that the power would seldom, if ever, be used by London authorities, but it is quite reasonable that we should make the Amendment. I cannot see that it is in any way objectionable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22.—(POWER OF ENTRY OF OFFICERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. C. Johnson: I beg to move, in page 15, line 5, to leave out "forty-eight" and to insert "twenty-four".
The Amendment has been tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and myself in order to give the Minister an opportunity to give the House, in accordance with his promise, his reserved judgment on the arguments put forward in Committee against the Clause as it stands. Briefly, it was then argued that because of the open character of caravan sites, advance notice of inspection appeared not to be essential and in any event two full days' notice was much too long, as that would normally afford the operator an opportunity of tidying up the site and even of remedying any breach which might exist, perhaps temporarily.
Moreover, as my hon. and learned Friend demonstrated in Committee, the comparable provisions for entry under the Public Health and other Acts invariably provide for only 24 hours' notice. For those reasons, and fortified by the way in which the Minister has met the last two Amendments, I hope that he will accept this Amendment, too.

Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) is also fortunate. I would not necessarily endorse all he has said on the subject, but I think that the grounds of uniformity here are very strong. It is 24 hours in Section 284 of the Public Health Act, 1936, and Section 103 (4) of the 1947 Act. I think it would be desirable to bring the period of notice in this Bill into line with that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)

Sir W. Wakefield: I beg to move, in page 16, line 34, to leave out "metropolitan borough".
This is consequential on the new Clause accepted earlier. It excludes the Metropolitan boroughs from the definition of "local authority" in Clause 25.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO SCOTLAND.)

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page
18, line 30, to leave out paragraph (e).
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the Amendment to Clause 2 (2) transferring the revised list of exemptions to a Schedule. Paragraph 11 of the Schedule is in the form appropriate to Scotland and so the paragraph of the application Clause is now unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 19, line 1, after "twenty" to insert:
(i) in subsection (I), the words "within their area" shall be omitted;
(ii).
Perhaps with this Amendment we can take the next Amendment, in line 5, after "and", insert "(iii)".
This Amendment is to enable Scottish local authorities to provide sites outside their own areas. In discussions with the Scottish local authority associations it was made clear that conditions in Scotland are somewhat different from those in England. Many of the smaller Scottish burghs would find that they were hampered by the lack of caravan sites in their own areas. In many cases the boundaries follow the built-up area fairly closely and even though a site could be squeezed within the burgh boundaries it would be unlikely to be good planning. Clearly where sites are needed they should be placed where good planning dictates. Planning control will remain with the local planning authority in the area where the site is located. Licensing control will remain with the licensing authority.

Mr. Willis: I assume from what the hon. Gentleman has said about this Amendment that the local authorities were consulted after the Bill had been published. That seems quite wrong. Surely consultation should have taken place before the Bill was drafted, in which case there would have been no necessity for this Amendment. I wish to express my strong disapproval I


suspected that the Government had just gone into this matter as usual without giving much thought to it, and having done so they found that the local authorities were not satisfied. Therefore, they have had to move this Amendment. I hope at a later stage to be able to say something further on the matter, which I consider most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Ross: I wish to congratulate the junior Member of the trinity of Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland on having listened to the Scottish local authorities. Has he told the local authorities what he is doing? I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is wrong, and that a discussion did take place before the Bill was actually published. Then the local authorities made certain suggestions to the Government and the authorities were led to understand that before anything else was done there would be a further meeting. That further meeting has never taken place. The authorities have not heard anything from the Government.
I wish to know whether this is one of the matters which was discussed with the Scottish local authorities. In this case it must have been the Convention of Royal Burghs. I cannot see the County Councils Association being concerned. It seems to relate to the small burghs. Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the Convention of Royal Burghs? This is the only point with which they were concerned which has been met by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Leburn: The local authorities were consulted on various matters. Certainly the County Councils Association has an interest in this matter. If a caravan site is taken outside the boundary of a burgh, it would be in the landward area of the county. The point arises from the fact that my right hon. Friend has incorporated an Amendment to show that in England the local authorities will not be in a position to provide a site outside their boundaries. That made it necessary to make this Amendment apply to Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 5, after "and", insert "(iii)".—[Mr. Leburn.]

Clause 28.—(APPEAL TO MINISTER AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE.)

8.0 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 20, line 34, to leave out from "not" to "within" in line 36 and to insert:
served on the owner or occupier of the land.
May we take this Amendment, Mr. Speaker, with the four following Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: They may be discussed together.

Sir K. Joseph: This group of Amendments arises from observations by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) during the Committee stage discussions. He said that the present drafting of paragraph (e) in Clause 28 (1) defines due service of the enforcement notice in terms of the observation of the four-year period and makes the service within that period an essential part of due service of the enforcement notice. This was not the intention of the Government, and so we have put down Amendments which together result in changing subsection (1, e) of the Clause to read:
that the enforcement notice was not served on the owner or occupier of the land within the relevant period of four years specified in subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the Act of 1947.
The House will observe that we are not now using the phrase "due service". The other Amendments eliminate the word "duly "from later references to service in the enforcement notice. I hope that the House will accept this group of Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 37, leave out "that section" and insert:
section twenty-three of the Act of 1947".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 21, line 31, to leave out "may" and to insert "shall".
Subsection (6) of Clause 28 makes provision for directions to be given by the Minister if he has to determine an appeal. It provides for that only in a permissive way. It says that.
the Minister may give directions for giving effect to his determination, including where


appropriate directions for quashing the enforcement notice …
if, for example, the right hon. Gentleman has found in favour of the appellant and the enforcement order is to be of no effect. If he does not quash it, certain things may follow from the fact that the notice is still in operation. Therefore, I seek to make this subsection mandatory on the Minister and to substitute the word "may for the word "shall" so that it will read:
on the determination of an appeal under this section the Minister shall give directions for giving effect to his determination…

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend accepts that in this situation he will be bound either to quash or vary the terms of the enforcement notice, and therefore he advises the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 21, line 42, leave out "duly".

In page 22, line 8, leave out "duly".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 30.—(SERVICE OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICES.)

Amendment made: In page 23, line 14, leave out "duly served" and insert:
served in accordance with the provisions of section one hundred and five of the Act of 1947".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 23, line 15, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of an appellant who has successfully appealed to the Minister on the ground referred to in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section twenty-eight of this Act.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Irvine.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: If I understand this matter aright, the point of this Amendment has been met by the last accepted Amendment in the name of the Minister. The Amendment does not arise.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged.

Clause 31.—(LIABILITY OF OWNER OF LAND FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF AN ENFORCEMENT NOTICE OTHER THAN THE DISCONTINUANCE OF A USE OF LAND.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 23, line 33, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:

(2) A person against whom proceedings are brought under this section and who alleges that the failure to take any steps required by the enforcement notice was attributable in whole or in part to the default of another person shall be entitled, upon information duly laid by him and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, to have that other person brought before the court in the proceedings.
This Clause deals with the enforcement of the enforcement notice. It deals with the position after there has been an enforcement notice. Under the 1947 Act the notice will have been served upon the owner and the occupier. The notice may be with regard to the use of the land. In that case subsequent proceedings before the magistrates will be taken under the 1947 Act against the person who is using the land in contravention of the enforcement notice.
It may also be an enforcement notice dealing with development of the land. In that case the failure to comply with it will be dealt with under this Clause, which deals with requirements of notices other than the discontinuance of a use of land.
If an enforcement notice is served in accordance with the 1947 Act on the owner and the occupier as is required by that Act, the summons before the magistrates if the notice is not carried out will be a summons to the owner under this Clause, and to the owner alone. He will have no defence whatsoever to that summons, unless he has disposed of the land and can bring the new owner into the proceedings with the allegation that the new owner is responsible for the failure to observe the enforcement notice. Apart from that, he will have no defence.
If he is still the owner of the land and his lessee is really responsible for the failure to comply with the notice, the owner will still be subject to the penalties under this Clause. It is true that under 'the next Clause he may apply to the magistrates for leave to enter on the land and remedy the position, but under this Clause he is absolutely liable and, as it stands, has no way of defending himself against the allegation that the notice has not been complied with.
The Amendment is an effort to bring into the Clause a very well-known procedure when enforcement notices result in a summons before magistrates. In innumerable cases under Statute law,


Section 290 of the Public Health Act is applied. If one party or the other is served with a summons alleging that an enforcement notice—such as a sanitary notice, a dangerous structure notice under the Public Health Act, or, more recently, a notice under the Clean Air Act—has not been complied with, the party upon whom the notice is served has the right normally under the present law to bring before the court the person whom he alleges is truly responsible for the failure. He has to satisfy the court that he, too, has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the notice. If someone else is entitled to exclusive occupation of the land, it is difficult to know how the owner can comply with the notice, except by a long procedure before magistrates to get leave to enter on the land and comply with the notice.
The Clause as it stands gives an owner served with a summons the right only to bring in a new owner to whom he has disposed of the land. The Amendment would allow any owner so served with a summons to bring into the proceedings the person whom he alleges is truly responsible.
When a similar proposition was discussed in Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary used these words in describing the reason for refusing to the owner any defence to a summons:
…it is because we want to establish certainty that we have to pick on one person who shall primarily be responsible for seeing that the law is carried out.
If it was merely a civil matter, I would not complain. Here it is a criminal matter. We are creating a criminal offence by a person who may not be in any way responsible for the commission of that offence. We are doing it, as was admitted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, as I read his phrase, for mere administrative convenience. He said, "We have to pick on someone, so we will pick on the owner".
He also said:
We have to fix upon somebody so that there shall not be a constant attempt to pass the buck between, perhaps, the original developer and the current developer or between a lessee and a lessee. We thus fixed upon the owner".
8.15 p.m.
This is the problem which arises in every case of an enforcement notice

under other Statutes. It is for the local authority applying for the summons under the enforcement notice to satisfy itself that it is issuing the summons against the person truly responsible. If the local authority fails to choose the right person, the person whom it has chosen to proceed against has the right to bring in the person truly responsible.
That is not so under the Clause as it stands at the moment. The person against whom proceedings are taken cannot bring in the person truly responsible. In excusing this Clause my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government had done this
… so that we can find somebody on whom can be laid the responsibility for abating the unpermitted development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, Tuesday, 17th May, 1960; c. 250 to 252.]
That is an astonishing declaration of principle. An offence is being created against a person who it is frankly admitted cannot be responsible, but the Administration is to pick on him because it has to pick on somebody and make that person responsible, because it is inconvenient perhaps to find out the real person responsible. It cannot be because they cannot trace the real person involved. It must be possible to trace the owner and the occupier, because it was necessary in the first instance under the 1947 Act to serve the enforcement notice which must give rise to the summons on the owner and the occupier. Therefore, the local authority will know who is involved.
This is an important matter. It is not mere administration. An important principle of law is involved. I remind the House that we are now on that Part of the Bill which applies generally and not merely to caravans. We are altering the general law applying to enforcement notices under the Planning Acts, and we are applying it in a way which has never been recognised in connection with enforcement notices under any other Statute.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has made a very fair statement of the two sides of the argument which we had in Committee. He has, perhaps somewhat naturally, minimised two of the strongest elements in my side of the argument. He has minimised, first, the


protection given to owners. I freely admit that it would be wrong to impose obligations on owners without making absolutely sure that they have ample protection. My hon. Friend has minimised, secondly, the confusion which can be caused by the use of Section 290 of the Public Health Act. The whole discussion is about the method of ensuring that abatement can be secured of unpermitted development.
I want at the start of the argument to dispose of one feature of what my hon. Friend said. He put much weight on the fact that, as he said, an enforcement notice is a criminal matter. This is just not so. Being served with an enforcement notice does not make a criminal of anybody, but being in breach of an enforcement notice does. What we are discussing is the service of an enforcement notice and whether it should be on the owner or on some other interested party. It is only the service which we are discussing. If the owner complies with the enforcement notice he is not in breach of it, and if he is not in breach of it there is no criminal offence.
My hon. Friend spoke as if it was absolutely simple to establish who was responsible for any unpermitted development. He said that it is either the owner or the occupier. In these complicated times there are all sorts of interests which might be involved. They may be developers. They may be occupiers, they may be owners, or they may be neither. There may be tenants, sub-tenants, and contractors of each of those parties. There may be agents of each one of those parties and of each contractor.
To leave the abatement of an unpermitted development to the pinning of responsibility for the development which would arise from the use of Section 290 would achieve nothing, I suggest, but confusion. It is necessary, if the enforcement of planning law is to be effective, that one person should be unambiguously responsible. Now, of course, I must be able to assure the House that one person—in this case the owner—has adequate protection.
I refer to two other matters. As my hon. Friend fairly pointed out, Clause 32 gives the owner power to carry out works on the property. Section 24 (2) of the 1947 Act gives him power to recover the cost of any work he has to do on the

property from whoever is responsible. I make no apology for repeating that the object of this combination of provisions is to secure that there is one person unambiguously identified, the owner, who shall be responsible for abating unpermitted development which is the subject of an enforcement notice. But it is not something on its own. It is grouped with provisions which give the owner power to abate an unpermitted development despite the occupation of other parties and which further enable him to recover the cost of so doing. I hope that I have been able to satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this matter again. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has replied with his usual skill and courtesy, I am not satisfied. We hear about "passing the buck", but I think that the position here was quite fairly stated by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when, in Committee, referring to the safeguards given to the owner, he said:
First, he has the right to recover, if he carries out the abatement himself, the cost against the tenant, occupier, lessee or sublessee, or whoever it may be, who has offended if it is not the owner who has offended.
We have an admission there that it may well not be the owner who has offended. My hon. Friend went on:
Secondly, he has the powers to which my hon. Friend referred, under regulations made under Clause 30"/>.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 17th May, 1960; c. 252.]
Surely, that is where the buck-passing will go on. A local authority is given the opportunity to pass the buck to the owner instead of making a genuine effort to find out who is responsible.
With great respect to my hon. Friend, I think it is really a side issue to quibble about the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) when he spoke about this being a criminal matter. As is fairly admitted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the truth is that the owner may be involved in criminal proceedings and be convicted of a criminal offence for which he may not himself be responsible. I confess that I find that thoroughly unsatisfactory in a Bill of this kind.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 13, at the end to insert:
(5) In this section the expression "owner" in relation to any land, means a person, other than a mortgagee not in possession, who, whether in his own right or as trustee for any other person, is entitled to receive the rack rent of the land or, where the land is not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if it were so let.
If the Amendment were not made, the word "owner" for the purposes of the Clause would be defined as in Section 119 of the 1947 Act, because Part II of the Bill is to be read as one with Part III of the 1947 Act. It seems to the Government right that we should insert here a slightly amended definition of the word "owner" in order to exclude the agent who is merely receiving rent as agent for a principal.
The only respect in which the 1947 Act definition is altered is that the two words "or agent" are excluded after the word "trustee In the context of Clause 31, and with the possibility of criminal liability, it seems right to exclude a person who is doing no more than receive money as agent for a principal because the liability should rest appropriately on the principal and not upon the agent.

Mr. Graham Page: I call attention to the word "trustee" in this subsection. If a trustee is included in the definition of "owner", he will be one of those who may well suffer under Clause 31, as I explained just now. He will be an owner who may, as trustee, in fact, be quite incapable of seeing that an enforcement notice is complied with, but as owner he may be summoned and convicted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33.—(DISCONTINUANCE OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICE ON GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION.)

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 33, at the end to insert:
and if the permission was granted so as to permit the retention of buildings or works or the continuance of any use of land without complying with some condition subject to which a previous permission under the said Part III was granted, the enforcement notice shall cease to have effect so far as it requires steps to be taken for compliance with that condition".
This is a technical Amendment. It is designed to bring Clause 33 into line

with the insertion of subsection (2) in Clause 36 which was done in Committee. The Amendment is necessary in order that the two Clauses should tie in with one another properly.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 42, at the beginning to insert: "Subsection (1) of".
This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that subsection (4) applies to subsection (1) of the Clause and not to the rest.

Amendment agreed to.

New Schedule.—(CASES WHERE A CARAVAN SITE LICENCE IS NOT REQUIRED.)

Use within curtilage of a dwelling-house

1. A site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment as such of a dwellinghouse within the curtilage of which the land is situated.

Use by a person travelling with a caravan for one or two nights

2. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site by a person travelling with a caravan who brings the caravan onto the land for a period which includes not more than two nights—
(a) if during that period no other caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation on that land or any adjoining land in the same occupation, and
(b) if, in the period of twelve months ending with the day on which the caravan is brought on to the land, the number of days on which a caravan was stationed anywhere on that land or the said adjoining land for the purposes of human habitation did not exceed twenty-eight.

Use of holdings of five acres or more in certain circumstances

3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which comprises, together with any adjoining land which is in the same occupation and has not been built on, not less than five acres—

(a) if in the period of twelve months ending with the day on which the land is used as a caravan site the number of days on which a caravan was stationed anywhere on that land or on the said adjoining land for the purposes of human habitation did not exceed twenty-eight, and
(b) if in the said period of twelve months not more than three caravans were so stationed at any one time.

(2) The Minister may by order contained in a statutory instrument provide that in any


such area as may be specified in the order this paragraph shall have effect subject to the modification—
(a) that for the reference in the foregoing sub-paragraph to five acres there shall be substituted a reference to such smaller acreage as may be specified in the order, or
(b) that for the condition specified in head (a) of that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted a condition that the use in question falls between such dates in any year as may be specified in the order,
or subject to modification in both such respects.

(3) The Minister may make different orders under this paragraph as respects different areas, and an order under this paragraph may be varied by a subsequent order made thereunder.

(4) An order under this paragraph shall come into force on such date as may be specified in the order, being a date not less than three months after the order is made; and the Minister shall publish notice of the order in a local newspaper circulating in the locality affected by the order and in such other ways as appear to him to be expedient for the purpose of drawing the attention of the public to the order.

Sites occupied and supervised by exempted organisations

4. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which is occupied by an organisation which holds for the time being a certificate of exemption granted under paragraph 12 of this Schedule (hereinafter referred to as an "exempted organization"/>) if the use is for purposes of recreation and is under the supervision of the organisation.

Sites approved by exempted organisations

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land as respects which there is in force a certificate issued under this paragraph by an exempted organisation if not more than five caravans are at the time stationed for the purposes of human habitation on the land to which the certificate relates.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation for use by its members.

(3) The certificate shall be issued to the occupier of the land to which it relates, and the organisation shall send particulars to the Minister of all certificates issued by the organisation under this paragraph.

(4) A certificate issued by an exempted organisation under this paragraph shall specify the date on which it is to come into force and the period for which it is to continue in force, being a period not exceeding one year.

Meetings organised by exempted organisations

6. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is under the supervision of an

exempted organisation and is in pursuance of arrangements made by that organisation for a meeting for its members lasting not more than five days.

Agricultural and forestry workers

7. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of agricultural land for the accommodation during a particular season of a person or persons employed in farming operations on land in the same occupation.

8. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site for the accommodation during a particular season of a person or persons employed on land in the same occupation, being land used for the purposes of forestry (including afforestation).

Building and engineering sites

9. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which forms part of, or adjoins, land on which building or engineering operations are being carried out (being operations for the carrying out of which permission under Part III of the Act of 1947 has, if required, been granted) if that use is for the accommodation of a person or persons employed in connection with the said operations.

Travelling showmen

10.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site by a travelling showman who is a member of an organisation of travelling showmen which holds for the time being a certificate granted under this paragraph and who is, at the time, travelling for the purposes of his business or who has taken up winter quarters on the land with his equipment for some period falling between the beginning of October in any year and the end of March in the following year.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph the Minister may grant a certificate to any organisation recognised by him as confining its membership to bona fide travelling showmen; and a certificate so granted may he withdrawn by the Minister at any time.

Sites occupied by licensing authority

11. A site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land occupied by the local authority in whose area the land is situated.

Certification of exempted organizations

12.—(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Schedule the Minister may grant a certificate of exemption to any organisation as to which he is satisfied that its objects include the encouragement or promotion of recreational activities.

(2) A certificate granted under this paragraph may be withdrawn by the Minister at any time.

Power to withdraw certain exemptions

13.—(1) The Minister may on the application of a local authority by order provide that, in relation to such land situated in their area as may be specified in the order, this Schedule shall have effect as if paragraphs 2 to 10, or such one or more of those paragraphs as may be so specified, were omitted from this Schedule.

(2) An order under this paragraph—
(a) shall come into force on such date as may be specified therein, and
(b) may, on the application of the local authority on whose application it was made, be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made thereunder:

Provided that the date specified as aforesaid in any such order shall, except in the case of an order the sole effect of which is to revoke in whole or part a previous order, be a date falling at least three months after the date on which notice of the order is published in a local newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the order relates is situated.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that his courteous submission has persuaded me that the circumstances attaching to his Motion for Recommital were so exceptional that I was wrong in my decision that I ought not to call it. In the circumstances, I wish to do two things, first, to apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman for my mistake, and secondly, to give him an opportunity to put it right.
I ought to say that similar considerations do not apply to the Amendment to the hon. Gentleman's Recommital Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) That will not be selected.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: May I express to you, Mr. Speaker, my thanks and those of the House? It was gratifying and reassuring to have an appeal for your guidance answered so generously and so effectively, and it may well help to restore a measure of faith in the much-abused point of order.
Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 27, page 20, line 10, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Ross.—[Mr. Ross.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 27.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO SCOTLAND.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 20, line 10, at the end, to add:
(5) Expenditure incurred by a district council in Scotland under this Act shall not be taken into account in any calculation as to the limit of one shilling per pound imposed on the district council by section two hundred and twenty-six of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.
During the Committee stage, the Government amended the Bill in respect of Clause 27 with a wisdom and an alacrity from which I do not at all dissociate myself. The Amendment extended to district councils, which represent the lower tier of Scottish local authorities, power to provide caravan sites, and with it the power to acquire land, either voluntarily or by compulsory purchase and to do upon that land what work is required to make adequate the provision of a caravan site.
What is omitted is the fact that the district councils, which are the ones with which we are concerned at the moment, are by Statute restricted both as to the purposes for which they may levy rates to raise money and also as to the amount of money they may raise. At that time, I drew the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State to this omission, and asked that something should be done. I may say that I had considerable help in drawing up the Amendment. Indeed, I have had so much official help that I begin to wonder whether there may not be a flaw in it. What it does is ensure that the district councils in the scattered country areas of Scotland would be able to act outside the limitation of a shilling in the £ in respect of the provision of caravan sites.

Mr. Leburn: I hope to show the Committee that with the same wisdom and alacrity I can deal with this proposal of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The Bill already accepts the principle of local authorities generally, and district councils in particular, providing sites, and, as the hon. Member has said, it would be unrealistic to give

>
power to act if, at the same time we were to deprive these district councils of the wherewithal to get going.
I should like to say that, by and large, we hope that any local authority which sets up a site, equips and runs it will be able to do so without any loss to the ratepayers. Certainly, in view of the need to encourage tourism, we would not wish district councils to be inhibited by any fear of running into temporary financial difficulties arising out of any statutory rating limitations. Accordingly, the Government are glad to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ross: Thank you very much.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (on recommittal) considered.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

8.35 p.m.

Sir k. Joseph: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill, as the whole House will agree, has been improved in Committee. This is thanks to the devotion, enthusiasm, experience and skill of hon. Members on both sides. My right hon. Friend is grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed so much both in discussion and in amendment to the Bill.
The House might like to know the main changes that have occurred since Second Reading. Perhaps the largest is the extension in the list of exemptions from licensing in Part I. This now covers further cases where land is occasionally used for the stationing of caravans. More particularly, there has been an extension to afford a reasonable measure of freedom for the person who is touring with his caravan while on holiday. The Government believe that the exemptions now provided, although the list in the Schedule is lengthy, touch only what might be described as the margin of the real caravan problem and that they will in no way prejudice effective control over the residential and holiday caravan sites, with which the Bill is primarily concerned.

A further provision has been introduced in Clause 19 to ensure proper collaboration between local planning authorities and the licensing authorities on the issue of planning permission and licences for caravan sites. We have also added a provision, which will be found in Clause 17, to clarify the circumstances in which an existing caravan site may be run down by means of licence conditions, thus safeguarding the position of sites already operating with planning permission or established use rights.
There are a number of smaller amendments with which I need not trouble the House, but there are still one or two outstanding matters in connection with the Bill which we have not yet resolved to our satisfaction and which may require further attention when the Bill goes to another place. The first relates to the problem of caravans on common land. Then, there is the question, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) was especially interested, of the application of the new enforcement procedure in Part II of the Bill to notices under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1947 Act. My hon. Friend was anxious that instead of regulations, as envisaged by Clause 39 of the Bill, we should do our best to put the changes in the Bill itself. This we are still trying to do and we hope that it may be possible to do it before the Bill becomes an Act. There are also a number of complexities in the operation of Clauses 9 and 35 which we have not yet finally resolved, so that we may want to look at the drafting of these two Clauses again.
In commending the Bill to the House with these changes, perhaps I may repeat once more our aims and our hopes. We want to make sure that there are enough caravan sites to meet the public demand in the right places and not merely to stop caravans becoming established in the wrong places, important though that purpose is. The licensing system is the Bill is designed to bring about positive improvements in living conditions on caravan sites. For the site operators who observe proper planning requirements and who are able and willing to maintain and equip their sites to a good standard, as is true in the great majority of cases, the Bill offers a new deal and long-term security.


Local planning authorities and local authorities will have effective powers under Parts I and II of the Bill to control both the location of caravan sites and conditions on the sites. There will be less need for authorities in the future to adopt a defensive attitude to caravans, as they 'lave sometimes done in the past. The Government are confident that they will exercise their new powers wisely, recognising the important part that the caravan now plays in the life of the community and the legitimate needs of the many thousands of people who today make their homes and take their holidays in caravans.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Short: On Second Reading of this Bill my hon. and right hon. Friends and I myself said that we thought that it was a mistake to base a Bill dealing with caravans, both residential caravans and holiday caravans, on the Arton Wilson Report which dealt purely with residential caravans. We feel the Minister should have had further inquiry—or extended the terms of the Arton Wilson inquiry—into the problem of the touring caravan as well. If he had done that, I think this would have been a better Bill to start with.
It was because of this, and because, I am quite sure, the Minister was in much too big a hurry to get the Bill on the Statute Book, that the original draft had so very many flaws; but the Minister has had the good sense to realise that there were many flaws and many anomalies and to accept a great many Amendments. I can only wish that during the passage of the Rent Bill, as it then was, he had listened to the many excellent suggestions which came from this side of the House, in the way he has done on this Bill.
In spite of the fact that the Bill is now a great deal better than it was in the original draft, there are still some fears which, I hope, the Minister will bear in mind during the rest of the Bill's passage through Parliament. The first is the point which was raised earlier tonight that the words "or any other feature" still remain in the conditions which the local authority can impose in giving a site licence. I am quite certain that local authorities throughout the country, unless the Minister watches

them very carefully, will impose a diversity of conditions which will make it extremely difficult for the caravan manufacturer, on the one hand, and the person who wants to tour from one local authority area to another, on the other hand. So I hope that the Minister, if he cannot alter this, will watch how it works out throughout the country very carefully. I do not remember how far he can go in the model conditions, but I seem to remember that in his model conditions he cannot specify constructional standards. That is one point which wants watching.
Secondly, I am quite sure that the pre-1948 site operator is not adequately safeguarded. I am not concerned with the man who started a site in recent years. I am concerned with the operator who started a site in the pre-1948 period. It may have been started twenty or thirty years ago when the operator was doing something which was perfectly lawful then. Their rights are permanent and unconditional. They may have been a little vague as to conditions but they were specifically confirmed in the 1947 Act and on these permanent and unconditional rights many operators have incurred considerable capital expenditure which they may not be able to recoup or the present operators may be people who bought sites because of those permanent rights.
I myself visited what is quite the best site I have ever visited—on Lake Windermere—a fortnight ago. I am sorry that the Minister did not visit the same site. I hope he will. I understand that something like £20,000 has been sunk in that site. This is a very important and substantial point.
I feel that those operators are certainly entitled to two things. They are entitled first of all to a much more insistent statement by the Minister that it is his policy that the operator on an existing site who is given planning permission less favourable than the rights he has enjoyed under the 1947 Act shall receive compensation. I think that the Minister must be quite specific and clear about that.
Secondly, I think we are entitled to a clear, definite assurance from the Minister that he has power to overrule planning authorities which do not follow this policy—I think he has go to do so


on grounds of sheer commercial injustice—and that he will not have to decide an appeal on planning considerations which 'would undoubtedly be valid if the appeal were over a new site. So I think that the Minister must think about the position of the pre-1948 site operators.
I regret that there is no security in the Bill for the caravan tenant. I regret also that it does not deal with tents. I think that in many respects they are a much greater danger. I would again refer to paragraph 13 of the new Schedule, that is, the bit of the Schedule which gives the Minister power to withdraw certain exemptions as set out in paragraphs 2 to 10. I hope that the Minister will use his power cautiously and discreetly. I should have thought that a local authority applying for the withdrawal of any exemption should do so only if it is flagrantly abused by the exempt body. I take it that that will be the criterion which the Minister will apply in deciding whether or not to withdraw any of these exemptions.
I have said from the beginning of our discussions on the Bill that I did not think that local authorities should be exempt from the need to obtain licences for their own sites. I still think that. They should set the standards and should not only comply with the law but be seen to comply with it the same as everybody else. One point which may have escaped the notice of the House is that a local authority is obliged to have regard to the Minister's model standards only on new sites established under the Bill when it becomes law.
Clause 20 (2) says:
…in exercising their powers under this section the local authority shall have regard to any standards which may have been specified by the Minister…
That is in exercising their powers under the Clause. There are some local authority sites which fall far below the standards required, and I should have thought that local authorities would have been obliged to pay regard to the Minister's standards on all their sites, the existing ones and the ones established under the Bill.
On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself, I must say that we wish the Bill well in the rest of its passage through Parliament. On the

whole, we think it a good Bill now. Part II is very good and Part I is considerably improved. We express the hope that all the interests concerned, local authorities, caravanning interests, manufacturers and site operators and the Minister will do all in their power to make it succeed. We look forward to seeing the model standards which I understand will be available as soon as the Bill has received the Royal Assent. We shall scrutinise them very carefully.
I regard caravanning as one of the best of the newer recreations that have sprung up since the war. It fulfils one of the greatest needs of this age, to bring people more into contact with the simple age-old life of the countryside and out of the cities and the hurried life for which I am sure the human frame and the human spirit were not intended. The best antidote to that is to get people into contact with the countryside. This is what modern man wants more than anything else to restore his spiritual perspective. I hope that the Bill will reconcile the need to do this with the need to preserve the countryside.

8.48 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I ought to ask the indulgence of the House for intervening very briefly at this stage because unfortunately I have not been able to be present at any time during the progress of the Bill so far. That has not been through any fault of mine. I have been in Africa on public duties.
I intervene because this is a subject with which I have been closely concerned ever since I first entered the House ten years ago. It was one of the first subjects that I ever raised in debate. At that time the Chertsey division was the one division where the problem had become more serious perhaps than it was anywhere else. It had not reached generally anything like the condition that it has been in during recent years and especially in the last year or two.
As an outsider, as it were, I am delighted to say a word of sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for having undertaken the great burden of dealing with this problem. It is a problem with which many people have felt it almost impossible to deal over the years, and I am sure it required great courage and determination on the part of my right hon. Friend to grasp the nettle. I am


sure that everyone will be grateful to him, and to those who have helped him in getting the Bill through the House.
The Bill will make many people in my constituency—which is still probably the worst affected in the country in relation to the caravan problem—feel that they can act within the law. During the last few years there has been a terrible feeling amongst almost everyone concerned that they were acting in a mean way if they attempted to carry on at all with caravanners, either from the point of view of the local authorities and caravan operators, or the people who lived in the caravans. There is no doubt also that many people have been put into difficulties, and sometimes exploited, by the legal problems and difficulties which this House has been considering during the last three months. From today at any rate they should be able to make a fresh start.
While I believe that we all ought to feel tremendous satisfaction at what has been achieved in the Bill, I do not think that we should adopt an attitude of complacency, because the machinery that has been provided here is very largely of a negative character. The machinery is not capable of producing results of itself in relation to the provision to ensure, as my hon. Friend so rightly described it, that the right kinds of caravans are in the right places. More than mere operation of the machinery will be needed. One of the things that will be needed most will be good will on the part of all concerned, and a real desire to make the Bill work.
We have discussed this afternoon the provision for the review of all sites and, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) pointed out, there will be a reconsideration of the position of people who for years have been acting in what they believed to be a perfectly legal way. That should cause no difficulty to anyone who has played the game, but if local authorities try to adopt a rather narrow attitude and to take technical points on these various provisions—for example, the word "feature" might provide them with an opportunity for doing so—it will be very unfortunate. Equally, if the site operators try to find loopholes and means of causing complications, both administra-

tively and otherwise, we shall not achieve the results we want to attain.
We hope that it will not be long before the Bill becomes law, because it is urgently needed, but I believe that it should be accompanied by a general recommendation from this House to all those concerned that they should try to co-operate and make a success of it. I do not believe it will be easy. I know of places where the problem is by no means settled, but if everyone sits round the table and realises the objects that we are trying to attain, that will be a good start.
My right hon. Friend, the representative of the Opposition, and other hon Members have shown a good example by treating this matter as a purely nonpartisan Measure and something which is designed to benefit all sections of those engaged in the industry and all those who live in caravans.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Hon. Members on both sides will be aware of the part played by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) in this matter, and will be very glad that he has intervened in this Third Reading debate. Much good work has gone into the Bill, and the Minister has proved receptive to points put forward by hon. Members on both sides.
The character of the caravan makes it easy to escape from planning control: indeed, the caravan has made the General Development Order relatively its playground. If the caravan could have been made answerable to planning enforcement provisions there would have been no need to impose anything in the nature of the licensing system which the Bill provides.
In appropriate contexts I favour the extension of public control for the public good. Basically, I suppose that is one of the main reasons why I find myself on this side of the House and not the other. But I feel very strongly that those of us who have this basic political sympathy and disposition have a very special interest in being continuously vigilant that Government Departments and local authorities are encouraged to operate fairly towards citizens. To the extent that we are able to satisfy the British people that Government Departments and local authorities behave fairly


and squarely in their conduct of affairs we will gain support.
I wish to give two instances where what I call the extension of planning control under cover of a licensing system may operate unfairly. The first concerns the pre-1948 user. I was especially glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) thought it right to emphasise this point. It is the case of an existing use originating either before 1948 or, because planning permission was not required under the 1947 Act, after 1948. Under the mechanism of the Bill that land user has to have permission or he cannot get a licence. If he is refused permission he will have to discontinue his use of the land. He will receive no compensation unless the refusal of the permission by a local planning authority takes the form of a discontinuance order under Sections 26 and 27 of the 1947 Act. Without that statutory provision, dealing with and requiring the refusal of permission to take that form, it is very unlikely that it will take that form. If this use is discontinued by any other mechanism than by a discontinuance order under the 1947 Act, no compensation will be payable, as I understand the law.
It is also only right to remember the admittedly less strong case of the person who has taken advantage of the four years' lapse of time since he commenced a contravening use of the land. That case will arouse relatively less sympathy among Members on both sides. But we must be fair here, also. We must recognise that in particular cases an injustice may be perpetrated. Someone may operate a caravan site in contravention of planning law for four years or more. During that period enforcement proceedings may not have been initiated, either because of the indolence of the local authority or because it was in doubt whether the kind of development that was going on was of a kind which required permission under the 1947 Act. Whatever the reason may be, the land user may have gone on for four years without enforcement proceedings being initiated.
At the end of that period the person concerned is outside the mischief of enforcement. I have heard of cases where such persons have then expended large sums of money upon the improve-

ment of the site. That expenditure may be useful and welcome, in the public interest. It may have the effect of improving the land or the sanitary provisions, and so forth.
Although such a person may have expended money in the public interest he will now be caught under the provisions of the Bill. If he wishes to go on with that use of the land and get a site licence he will have to get planning permission. If he is refused permission the refusal will certainly not take the form of a discontinuance order, because a discontinuance order under the 1947 Act is applicable only in the case of an authorised user. Such a person, therefore, would get no compensation. Those are the circumstances in which it is possible for injustice to be done.
I wish to repeat the initial point I made, to which I attach importance. If it appears odd to anybody that from this side of the House I should be appearing to put forward points favourable to the site operator—and even to the site operator who has been acting in contravention of planning law for some time—I venture to insist that, none the less, I do so because I take the basic view that, although we want to extend public control in these matters, it is of vital importance to ensure that both Government Departments and local authorities are given every encouragement to behave fairly and squarely towards citizens. Those are flaws, if there is substance in my criticism, arising from the circumstance that an extension of planning control is effected by the superimposition of a licensing system, but they are flaws which there is still time to correct during the passage of this l3ill through Parliament.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Temple: I add my congratulations to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary upon their very flexible approach to the Bill, and I add my appreciation of the work of the officers of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government whom I have seen on many occasions and who have rendered me immense services in considering the substance of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend was perfectly right to press on with this legislation.


There was undoubtedly a great need for it and had he waited for a committee to report on the problems of the travelling caravanner, we would have had to wait until another Session for the Bill. It was much more reasonable that he should have pressed on as he did and accepted many Amendments during the passage of the Bill.
There is no doubt that the Bill gives local authorities very great power and control over caravans. That must never be forgotten, but along with that control the Bill gives them very great responsibilities as well. However, I am very sensible of the fact that the problems of the travelling caravanner have been considerably eased during the Bill's passage.
There is one aspect of the Bill upon which there has been very little comment. It is that the Minister has power to specify model standards. No Amendments to that provision were suggested and so it was practically never discussed. It is immensely important, as these model standards will apply to the layout, services, facilities and equipment of caravan sites. In its third leader on 26th May, The Times said:
The Bill does not lay down national minimum standards for sites, so the conditions they attach to licences could (despite the MINISTER'S model) mean much or nothing.
It is important that those model standards should mean a great deal. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that he has every intention that his model standards will command the greatest respect among authorities with the power to administer this legislation.
At one and the same time, the model standards must be extremely flexible and elastic. They will have to apply equally to the single caravan site and to sites for 100 or 500 caravans. They will have to apply to areas of great scenic charm and to areas of lesser scenic importance.
An article in the June issue of The Mobile Home said:
what will be the position of the individual caravan resident who has had the wit to find himself a quiet spot in the corner of an orchard?
I was thinking about that quotation when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was speaking about crofts, because an individual caravan may be

sited adjacent to a croft. The model standards must be flexible, because the croft may have no sanitation whatsoever while the model standards for caravan sites may say that all kinds of special sanitation should be provided where a residential caravan is sited. One may have a situation where there is a very much higher standard of sanitation for a caravan which is sited alongside a croft with virtually no facilities whatever. That is why I say that these model standards should be very flexible.
Clause 4 refers to amenities and the planting of trees and shrubs. Anyone with experience of the countryside can appreciate that the planting of trees and shrubs to effect a screening of a caravan site is a comparatively long-term project. We are encouraging site operators to screen sites properly, but it is unrealistic to think that a site operator will plant trees, say, ten years before the caravans arrive. In drawing up the model standards, my right hon. Friend will have to have regard to the fact that if a site operator shows every Intention of undertaking a screening project, the site must be permitted to be established while the necessary screening is growing up. That is why I hope that a very elastic attitude will be adopted when my right hon. Friend specifies his model standards. I would have preferred the standards to be in the form of regulations, but so long as they are definite and so long as my right hon. Friend is sure that local authorities will have to have regard to them, I am satisfied.
I said that local authorities would have great responsibilities as well as powers. There is no doubt that everyone in the House hopes that the standard of living of the people of this country will improve. As the standard of living improves, more and more of our people will get longer holidays with pay. As the public demand for caravans increases, so, in turn, will the demand for land increase. It would be disastrous if by reason of the tight control exerted through this Bill we were to drive caravan owners across the English Channel to seek their holidays abroad. I hope that as a result of the Bill more caravanners will take their holidays in the British Isles. That would be a great saving to the Chancellor.


I should like to put in a word about agriculture. In my opinion, agriculture has nothing to fear by reason of a land grab by caravanners, because necessarily there are large areas of sub-marginal land, by which I mean farm land below the marginal farming standard, which could easily be developed by caravan site operators into excellent caravan sites. If that land were so developed, it would bring a great deal of employment and prosperity to those areas of the British Isles which are being depopulated at present. I believe that there will be site operators ready and willing to develop these areas of sub-marginal land.
This Bill, for the first time, gives these developers two things. It gives them the prospect of long-term planning provisions and, further than that, it gives them the prospect of long-term site licences. With these two provisions in their hands, the developers can go forward to developing the sites in these remote areas. The key is the planning permissions. The local authorities and, in the last resort, my right hon. Friend hold the key to the possibility of opening up these sites. If there is a reluctance on the part of the local authorities to grant the necessary planning permissions, my right hon. Friend has the power in his own hands to set the pattern when hearing cases which will come to him regarding planning permission refusals.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that he wanted to make enough sites available. I have fairly and squarely put the responsibility on by right hon. Friend and on the local authorities. Theirs is the responsibility and if they do not accept that responsibility they themselves will be continuing the monopoly value of sites which exists at the present time. They will be responsible for the key money which will be extorted from people by reason of the fact that there are not sufficient caravan sites. I hope that a liberal attitude will be adopted by the local authorities and by my right hon. Friend with regard to the granting of planning permissions. I feel confident that this Bill, having bad such an excellent start in this House and having had the good will of both sides and the blessing of the local authorities and of the caravan industry, will bring further health and happiness to the people of Britain.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) hoped that caravanners would not have to go abroad in order to enjoy the benefits of their caravan holidays. There is no need for them to go abroad. All they have to do is to go to Scotland. Having been introduced to the glories and beauties of that country, they would never dream of going anywhere else. We are ready to welcome them. One is astounded when one sees what is already available in the way of caravan sites and how small towns and burghs throughout Scotland, many of which are not Socialist in any way, already have local authority sites for caravans and welcome the arrival of caravanners in their areas.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been right to praise the Ministers in charge of the Bill, not only for their foresight in introducing it, but also for the way in which they have handled it. Special compliments arc due to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He has done very well. He has completely dominated the Minister, and long may he continue to do so. It was a refreshing surprise to hear the enlightened defence of public-spirited action by local authorities advanced from that quarter of the House. All joking apart, he has done a good job on the Bill.
In the Bill we are catching up with a problem and appreciating the dangers involved in allowing it to get any further out of hand. Hon. Members will not be surprised if I explain that during Committee and today I have listened to the proceedings with a certain measure of frustrated energy. I welcome Part I of the Bill, as it applies to Scotland—and practically all its provisions do apply to Scotland. We are giving Scottish local authorities new duties and responsibilities, not only to make provision for the well-being of the caravan community and the touring caravanners whom we hope will come to the Highlands and even to the crofts, but also to look after the interests of the general public in respect of dangers to health. For example, in one small burgh it might be possible to have a caravan site containing 250 caravans, which might contain about a thousand people. If the local authority does not exercise in


respect of that site all its responsibilities in relation to public health laid upon it by Parliament for the rest of the community, it will be failing in its duty.
I think that the Government are right to insist that the local authority should be the site licensing authority, with powers to impose conditions and powers of enforcement. I know that the powers of enforcement and the changes made in Part II involved a certain measure of disunity in the party opposite, and during the Committee the Minister showed his wisdom and courage in standing up to that opposition. But where was the Secretary of State for Scotland? I recall how the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary fought in defence of the new enforcement provisions which they regarded as essential for the well-being of the public—not only of the caravanners but of everyone else. But where was the Secretary of State for Scotland? Because Part II, this important part of the Bill, is not applicable to Scotland. This is dreadful.
I know that you may say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that because it is not applicable to Scotland, therefore it is not included in the Bill and cannot be discussed on Third Reading, but, with all respect, it is included in the Bill; the vital words in Clause 41 (3) are,
This part of this Act shall not extend to Scotland".
Before I give my blessing, or my partial blessing to the Bill, I must draw attention to this weakness and this failing in it. I had hoped that we might be able to discuss this question on Report, but it was not possible.
The Scottish Office has considerable responsibility to the people of Scotland. So far as I can understand it, the same things which impelled the Minister to introduce this streamlining in relation to enforcement for England apply equally to Scotland. The matter was discussed with the Scottish Office and the Scottish local authorities. Far from the story we heard from the Joint Under-Secretary of State being true, the Scottish local authorities left the Scottish Office in no doubt about where they stood before the publication of the Bill. It may be that consultation was invited too late, but the local authority representatives were unanimous that the existing procedure regarding enforcement was quite

inadequate and lent itself to abuse. They also pointed out that existing procedure for appeal to the sheriff was inadequate in that the sheriff was entitled under existing law to decide the case on planning considerations. It was felt undesirable that in such appeals the sheriff should have power to deal with the planning aspects of the case.
The need for legislation was put to the Department and brushed aside. I ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has had anything to do with this. I do not doubt that he has. The right hon. Gentleman will have a good memory of what happened last time, when he tried to put Scotland in the same kind of planning legislation as England.
What about the Scottish position? We need this legislation, but we are not getting it. I put the problem to one of the most knowledgeable men on Scottish local authority work, a newcomer to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who has had considerable responsibility in respect of this aspect of planning in Lanarkshire. He told me that during last year the number of applications for permissions regarding caravans increased nearly ten times. We are catching up with the problem in England and Wales, but in Scotland it is growing by leaps and bounds, and we are being denied the enforcement provisions properly to deal with it. I do not think this is good enough.
I have been supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie with a list of examples which prove the case in relation to enforcement. People are using all the loopholes available to them and staving off the enforcement order. In the meantime they are carrying on profitable businesses. In one case in Lanarkshire it took nearly five years to get a conviction, and the offender was fined £7. Another case took a few years to settle and the decision of the sheriff was to ask the offender to make his peace with the county council, and then the whole thing started all over again. Offenders take advantage of the leniency accorded them, and when the sheriffs make a decision all that happens is that offenders move from one site to another and the whole procedure starts again.


This is a matter which is adequately dealt with in one of the Clauses in Part II of the Bill in relation to England, but there is no solution for Scotland. I think that here we have a justified grievance. I wish to know whether it will be met by the Scottish Office. When are we to get legislation? Are we to get legislation? This complete failure properly to appreciate the situation relating to Scotland is something which causes us much concern. We want the touring caravans and other caravans which are used for holiday purposes, but we do not want this to degenerate into another social problem. For whatever reason, the Scottish Office just burkes the issue, although here was an opportunity for us to cope with the problem.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State or the Minister can tell us how they justify the provisions in Clause 34 relating to penalties. We now have a penalty of £100 for offences committed in England and Wales but in Scotland, for the same offence, the fine is £50. This was one of the things discussed with the Scottish local authorities. They were asked by the Department whether they thought it time to review the penalties. They agreed that the penalties should be reviewed. They have been reviewed for England and Wales and a change has been made, but nothing has been done in relation to Scotland. The thing just does not make sense. It is not fair.
I know that perhaps I have trespassed a little in relation to what I may discuss on Third Reading, but the words are in the Bill, that it shall not apply to Scotland. That gives me ample scope to roam over the Part which does not apply to Scotland in order to decide whether I am able to vote for the Bill at all. I sincerely hope that I have made clear that I regard this Bill with a pleasant eye from the point of view of Part I and with an envious and jaundiced eye regarding Part II. I hope that in future the Secretary of State for Scotland will assert himself.

Miss Margaret Herbison: My hon. Friend mentioned the £100 fine in England and Wales as compared with the £50 fine in Scotland. The Secretary of State may have reviewed it but realised that we were much poorer brethren and that the Tory Government

could not make us any better off than we are.

Mr. Ross: That may well be, but I have my doubts about it. I am convinced that the people who are the private developers of caravans down here will be the people who will eventually do it in Scotland.
This is what concerns me. The problem is the same. The solution is the same. However, the law of Scotland is different from the law of England, and these things can be properly dealt with only by giving Scotland its own legislation. We should have had a Bill for Scotland. If we had had it from the start—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is going too far when he suggests a separate Bill. He was in order so long as he related his remarks purely to the one passage:
This Part of this Act shall not extend to Scotland.
He is not allowed to go into details of fresh legislation on Third Reading.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. Is it not in order to suggest that we do not want Part I to apply to Scotland? That is what my hon. Friend is doing. He is suggesting that one Part should not apply and that another Part should apply, as a result of which he deduced that we should have had a separate Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: So long as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock was dealing with the Bill applying to Scotland, he was in order, but when he went, as I heard him, order, but when he went, as I heard him, so far as to suggest that a separate Bill should be introduced to apply to Scotland he went beyond the scope of a Third Reading debate. That is what I understood the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to be saying. He will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. An hon. Member is entitled to draw the logical conclusion from arguments which are in order. If the arguments relating to Parts I and II are in order, my hon. Friend is entitled to draw the logical deduction from them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is correct, and for the last several minutes the hon. Member for Kilmarnock has been doing just that. But then the hon. Member went further and suggested, as I heard him, that fresh legislation should be introduced to deal with Scotland. That was outside the scope of a Third Reading debate.

Miss Herbison: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has been dealing with Part II, in particular Clause 41(3):
This part of this Act shall not extend to Scotland.
He has been trying to put questions to the Joint Under-Secretary of State to learn why it should be stated that it does not apply to Scotland. He has done this so that he will be able to decide whether to vote against the Bill. My hon. Friend has given his reasoning. If he has ultimately to decide to vote against the Bill he has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, come to the logical conclusion, which he must state, that because Part H does not apply to Scotland we should have separate legislation. With due respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that is the only conclusion which my hon. Friend could reach and there would have been no sense in his argument had he not stated it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I permitted the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to develop his argument in the sense that the hon. Lady has just explained. It was only when he advocated fresh legislation being introduced that I thought that he was going too far.

Mr. Ross: If you had not interrupted me, Sir, I should have been finished a long time ago. I was on the point of uttering my last five words. I ask you Sir, to reconsider the judgment you just gave, because I remind you and the House that the last time we had town and country planning legislation of this nature the one thing which was in order on Third Reading was to ask for fresh legislation for Scotland. Although it was in the last Session of Parliament, you, Sir, may remember that the Secretary of State for Scotland started the Third Reading debate by saying that the same Bill would be reprinted in Scottish legal terms and proper form and reintroduced.

To suggest that we are not entitled to follow the logic of our conclusion and appeal to precedent in the form of past legislation carries it a little too far.
This sort of thing is always unsatisfactory. Part I applies to Scotland. When reading Part II, one has to move through Clause 28 without finding any mention of Scotland. Then one sees the rigmarole of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e). (f) and (g). One has to go through all the previous Clauses, amending this, scoring out that, and adding something else. It is most unsatisfactory. When one comes to the Part which is the real meat, the enforcement Part, one sees the changes in planning legislation which have been forced upon the Government by their experience of what has happened in England and Wales. There is the same problem in Scotland. Can anyone have any cause to complain when we express our anger at discovering that this is not applicable to Scotland? I am sure that the reason is the technical difficulty of weaving Scottish planning legislation in with that of England. That is why I think that I am justified in saying on Third Reading that the only solution in Scotland to this problem, properly met in England and Wales by this Bill, would be to give us separate Scottish legislation, not fresh legislation but legislation of exactly the same character.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in his last remarks, just as I would agree with him if he said that England ought to have home rule. If his arguments were presented elsewhere, we should have a lot more time to ourselves in this Chamber.
I agree also with what the hon. Gentleman says about the enforcement notice procedure. It has been quite obvious that a reform in the procedure has been necessary for many years. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on piloting the Bill thus far. I congratulate them on the Part I which deals with caravans. I cannot, however, congratulate them on the methods they have found in Part II for the reform of the enforcement procedure. There is very much of good in Part I of the Bill relating to caravans, but the price we have to pay


in Part II for that good is, in my view, far too high.
The enforcement procedure under the present law is not a duplicate procedure but a triplicate procedure. A site operator who wishes to avoid enforcement has the right to go before the magistrate, the Minister and the local authority in several forms of procedure and to delay the ultimate penalty upon himself. That needed reform, but, in my view, my right hon. Friend has adopted the wrong way of reforming it in Clause 28. He has thrown all planning appeals and all appeals from enforcement notices before one tribunal, that tribunal being the inspector appointed by himself.
Obviously, the inspector is an extremely correct person to deal with matters of administrative discretion. When it is really a planning decision which has to be made, the inspector of the Ministry is the right person to hear the appeal from the enforcement notice, hut appeals in at least four of the cases detailed in Clause 28 have nothing whatever to do with planning. They are appeals purely on fact, and very large sums may be involved. The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) in his Third Reading speech referred to established rights and rights which had been acquired over four years. Large sums may have been spent on the development of sites.
Here we are dealing not only with caravans, as in Part I of the Bill, but with any type of development of properties, and very expensive development may have taken place. Perhaps buildings have been erected on the basis that a right was acquired there before 1948, and, under Clause 28, whether or not there was a right established before 1948 is to be settled by a person appointed by the Minister, from whom there is no appeal except on a point of law.
I want to stress to the House what may happen in practice before a person so appointed. He is normally not a lawyer, so that if a point of law is raised before him he takes a note of it and informs the parties that he will take legal advice on it. In short, it will be decided by my right hon. Friend on the advice of the legal department of the Ministry, which will not have heard the legal arguments, but will merely have before it a note taken by the inspector.

A point of law, of course, depends upon the facts, and should the inspector, who is not a legal man, not appreciate the point of law, he will not search out the facts for and against that point of law. I should have thought that it was essential in cases where it is not a planning decision, but a decision on facts and law, that there should be something more than a tribunal appointed under Clause 28, even if it were only that my right hon. Friend should appoint a legal assessor to sit with his inspector, because, under the Clause as it stands at the moment, the inspector's decision is final, except on points of law.
I feel so strongly that this course is wrong that I cannot give a blessing to the rest of a Bill which contains a Clause like this. I hope that this point will be looked at in the later stages to see whether something cannot be done to provide a better tribunal than that suggested in Clause 28 for those cases which are not based entirely upon planning permission. Part I of the Bill has so much good in it that it is unfortunate that Part II, which is of general application, should have this fault.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on one thing that he said, and that is about the admirable purport of Part I of the Bill, which applies to Scotland. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), however, I am bound to say that I do not like this method of legislating for Scotland. I should have thought that the Scottish Office had learned its lesson on the occasion of the last Town and Country Planning Bill.
It is quite true, of course, that, technically, it is not so much town and country planning legislation in Part I, but it is true to say that it is an extension of planning legislation. It may not be dealing with the original Act so much, but it is an extension of the principle. I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will reply to this debate or not, but surely the hon. Gentleman remembers the last great volume of protest against incorporating Scotland into Bills dealing with planning. In fact, even the Faculty of Advocates protested to the


Secretary of State against this procedure, and, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, as a result of the very great many protests about this procedure, the Scottish Office ultimately had to introduce a separate Bill altogether, incorporating the provisions which had originally been passed in a Bill for England and Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will appreciate that this creates great difficulty for the Chair. I am not without sympathy for the point he desires to make, but I do not see how he can manage to make it within the rules of order on Third Reading. With respect to him, in the case of the kind of legislation and trouble that he is recalling, the objection and protest is made at a much earlier stage in the Bill, and that is a different matter. I have listened to him, but I desire him to remain in order.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I will try to remain in order and will accordingly address myself to the Clauses of the Bill.
We have a Clause of two and a half pages applying Part I to Scotland, and it is exceedingly difficult to follow. This Clause means that anybody dealing with the Bill in Scotland has not only to read through Clauses 1 to 24 but to read Clause 26. He then has to read Clause 25 to get the interpretation of the Part of the Bill which deals with Scotland.
To understand this part of the Bill, the lawyer in Scotland—the town clerk —has to read Clause 25, entitled "Interpretation of Part I". Therein he reads:
'the Minister' means the Minister of Housing and Local Government".
However, he then has to read
Application of Part Ito Scotland
and he reads in Clause 27 that
the definition of 'the Minister' shall be omitted".
He then turns back to the beginning of Clause 27 and finds that any reference to the Minister means the Secretary of State. I suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary that that is not fair to the officials in Scotland, many of them part-time officials in the small burghs, who will have to handle the Bill.

Perhaps I may follow that up by asking a question about the model standards. I see from Clause 4 (6):
The Minister may from time to time specify for the purposes of this section model standards with respect to the layout…
of sites. I take it that the Secretary of State will do this in Scotland. Do I take it that the Secretary of State can specify model standards that are quite different from those specified for England? The Joint Under-Secretary may appear to be amused, but it is an important point because a great many of the conditions in Scotland are quite different from what they are in England. I want, therefore, to ask whether that is so and whether it is the Secretary of State's intention simply to issue the same model standards as the Minister of Housing and Local Government will issue in England or whether he intends to do something different. It may be that we could have an answer to this question too.
Part II of the Bill does not apply to Scotland. That is a pity. The reasons have already been dealt with and I do not want to get out of order any more than I might have been, but I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government at some time to introduce an equivalent to Part II for Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said, the provisions contained within Part II are required by Scotland. Unfortunately our Amendment was not called, otherwise we could have debated this.

Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Member, but this seems to be a matter in which he is disappointing himself in his desire not to go out of order.

Mr. Willis: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in expressing my feelings about the Bill it is in order to say that I am disappointed that Part II does not apply to Scotland.
What I am trying to say, briefly, is that whilst I want the provisions of the Bill, it is a bad Bill because, first, it mixes up Scotland with England in Part I and, secondly, it does not include Scotland in Part II. That is why the Bill does not appeal to me as a good Bill, although the objects which it sets out to achieve are admirable.


Having said those things, I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will take some of them rather seriously. While I deal with these matters in a friendly spirit, nevertheless there is very great feeling about some of the things that we have mentioned.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: I very much welcome the general objects of both Parts of the Bill, though I want to make one or two points on how I think it might have been better than it is. In the first place, although I am naturally not quite so attracted to public ownership as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), I agree with him that the good name of local authorities should be absolutely unimpeachable in the way they deal with the rights of private individuals, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider very carefully the doubts raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I can see that there is considerable cause for saying, in the case of the pre-1948 developer, that it may be that any loss of planning permission would have to come through the discontinuance order under Section 26 of the 1947 Act, but the very fact that somebody like the hon. and learned Gentleman can have the doubts which he has expressed is a reflection on the drafting of the Bill. The whole object of legislation, when all is said and done, is to be certain.
As far as the four-year man is concerned, of course the hon. and learned Gentleman was right in saying that we all have comparatively less sympathy with him, but let us remember that those four-year rights may equally have been acquired, and the property sold to somebody else, in all good faith, in the belief that there was no possibility of planning permission being withdrawn. I would agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member that in that case there would be no question of a discontinuance order under Section 26, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this and bear in mind that the very fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman has these doubts is a reflection on the drafting which should be settled. Though we all have great respect for the legal advice which my right hon. Friend receives in his Department, it is not necessarily better than legal advice from the Temple.

There are one or two points I would make on the enforcement side. I personally regret that this Part of the Bill did not appear under the title of "Town and Country Planning." It seems to be that if we build a whole new structure on what really is the basis of two Sections of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, it is a pity to call it "Caravan Sites: General Control of Development." However that may be, there are one or two points about which I, for one, certainly have doubt and on which I hope my right hon. Friend will comment.
The first one arises on Clause 33, which we discussed earlier tonight. I would remind my night hon. Friend that it is not always easy to say to the owner that he must protect himself in his lease. There are a great many leases which have already been entered into and which have a considerable number of years to run. It is not easy suddenly to put in a lease a clause which is necessitated only by this Bill, to safeguard oneself against infringement of planning control. The difficulty is particularly marked where the land is agricultural land. There are leases which go on from year to year with virtually complete security of tenure, and I think that the Bill may be putting a very considerable burden on the owner, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary is showing a good deal of optimism if he thinks it is easy for the owner to pass this on to the tenant.
The next point that worries me a little arises out of Clause 33, when I recall that the repeals Clause at the end of the Bill repeals the provision in Section 23 of the 1947 Act by which, pending appeal under Section 18 of the 1947 Act for planning permission, the enforcement notice, so to speak, was suspended. In this case, that having been repealed, it appears that if planning permission is subsequently obtained, it is obtained with effect from a date later than the enforcement notice. Subsection (2) would operate to enable the recipient of the notice to be prosecuted in spite of the fact that at the time the prosecution took place planning permission had been given and the enforcement notice had ceased to have effect.
There is on Clause 35 another small matter, but again one of clarification. I read with interest the proceedings in Standing Committee on the Clause. My


hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government agreed entirely with the Committee's views that the development referred to in the second line of subsection (2) was development taking place after the commencement of the Act. I cannot for the life of me see why that should not say so. It is well enough to say that we have used the present tense, but that is used in a great many enactments in which it is followed by the words "before" or "after" the commencement of the Act.
I hope that this will be made clear, because I think that I am right in saying that subsection (5) of the Clause makes it clear that, as far as enforcement goes, it applies whether it was before or after the Act, but development is to come in only if the development is carried out after the commencement of the Act. I hope that this matter will be made clear in the drafting.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Richard Collard: I listened diligently to the proceedings in Standing Committee on the Bill, and, except briefly on one occasion, I resisted the temptation to take part, not having any previous precise knowledge of the matters at issue. But I wish now on Third Reading to make three comments on the Bill which perhaps will be regarded as general and non-legal but, I hope, as none the worse for that. Two of the comments are on Part I and one on the Bill in general.
My first comment on Part I can be dealt with very shortly, because my anxiety on the point has been allayed to a considerable extent by the new Schedule which my right hon. Friend has introduced. Part I gives considerable powers to the local authorities and it gives, quite properly, a degree of protection to site owners and site operators. It shows, again quite properly, some tenderness to the showman and recognises organisations such as the Caravan Club of Great Britain. But I wonder about the private individual, the member of no organisation, the man who simply has a caravan and wishes to tour with it. He simply wants to go on holiday and he goes on holiday in a caravan in order to seek freedom and not to seek regulations.

It is to be hoped that Part I will not face him with regulations which otherwise he would be able to avoid. I wonder, even now with the new Schedule, whether he will find that his favourite spots are no longer available or that the owner of a site which he had previously visited cannot accept him because the owner is up to the statutory prescribed number of caravans and will have regretfully to tell him to go away.
Secondly, the Bill gives to local authorities not only powers of licensing but also of compulsory purchase of land for the purpose of having their own caravan sites.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Bill exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Collard: My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) fluently but unsuccessfully opposed that provision during the Committee stage. I am concerned about the granting of licences and the compulsory purchase of land. Will local authorities have a proper regard for preserving the amenities of picturesque places?
I mentioned in Committee that I am fortunate enough to represent part of the County of Norfolk, a county which is rich in beautiful villages, and a county which in the summertime is visited by many holidaymakers. We welcome those visitors, but picturesque places like those about which I am thinking are liable to be selected as caravan sites, and there is no doubt that a caravan site must inevitably be unsightly. Much of the Bill will improve the unsightliness of caravan sites but, generally speaking, a caravan site cannot improve a picturesque spot.
Compulsory purchase in the last resort will prevent local people from resisting the destruction of those amenities which are for the benefit of all, and which, once spoilt, cannot be replaced. It is, therefore, to be hoped that local authorities will be particularly vigilant lest the new powers are used to desecrate even more of the countryside.


Finally, it is to be noted that the Bill as a whole strengthens the position of local authorities, and therefore I hope that one is justified in considering for a moment how local authorities exercise their responsibilities at the present time. Criticism of local authorities is not to be taken as condemnation. I hasten to say that they do fine work. Members of local authorities render services which are unpaid and unpublicised but very valuable; but without doubt the great blemish on local government is delay.
The reasons are, of course, many and understandable. Councillors are part-time workers. Much of the work is done in committee, and it is not always possible to get committees to meet as often as one would like. The regulations with which they have to deal are complex. There a re heavy burdens on local authorities, and these must impose some delay on their deliberations. Councils must have a proper regard for ratepayers' money and the spending of it, and that, too, must impose delay, but it is undeniable that there is widespread, what I would call, oppression by delay.
I think that it will be within the general experience of hon. Members that most complaints of local difficulty which concern local authorities do not so much concern decisions which are unjust or inequitable, but concern delays in getting any decision at all. It is true that Part I of the Bill lays down certain time-limits for the approving of existing sites, but the provisions in the Bill in general, and in particular the new rules for the licensing of caravan sites, seem to provide endless possibilities for delay if one wishes to use them.
I can only suggest that a spirit of urgency would help in local authorities. They should not shelve matters, or put them off to their next meeting, simply because this or that detail does not happen to be available, or because the matter seems to be too difficult. In particular, councillors of local authorities should question their officials very closely when those officials counsel delay, and they should demand very good reasons if they counsel delay in matters affecting individuals who are seeking authority or permission from the council.
With those reservations, and in the hope that in these matters local authorities will set their faces against oppression by delay, I welcome the Bill.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), but I am delighted to seize the opportunity of welcoming what he said about the part which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has played in the proceedings on the Bill. No Minister could have had a better assistant; indeed, no Minister could have been more generously treated by the Standing Committee and the House. In many respects this has been a model of the way in which we ought to handle a Bill which arouses no party feelings.
I express my thanks to hon. Members on both sides who served on the Standing Committee and who have taken part in the debates on the Floor of the House. The Government, in respect of their English and Scottish representatives, have done their best to be receptive of ideas from both sides, and have tried to join with everybody in shaping this into a still better Bill.
I took it a little amiss when the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) criticised the Government for having been over-hurried in seeking to get the Bill on to the Statute Book. My view is that we need it on the Statute Book as soon as possible. To go back into history—the sole reason why I asked Sir Arton Wilson to confine his invaluable investigations to residential sites was that if I doubled his work by asking him to study problems of the holiday caravanner and the mobile caravan it was clear that he would not be in a position to present a comprehensive report in time for the Government to bring forward legislation this Session.
From all I knew about this matter two years ago it seemed as clear as possible that we ought to try to get new legislation on to the Statute Book not later than the summer of 1960, and I now thank the House for the help it has given me in achieving that object. I shall be very glad to convey the appreciation expressed by a number of hon. Members to those people who, in the Departments—not only in my own but behind the scenes—have devoted so much work to helping Ministers and Parliament in the shaping of the Bill.
An unusually large number of detailed questions have been asked in the course


of this Third Reading debate, and I will try to answer those which seem to be most substantial. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is very worried about Clause 28. I would point out that the kind of question which has to be dealt with under subsections (1, c) and (1, d) is exactly the sort of question which already comes before the Minister of appeal against determinations by the local planning authority under Section 17 of the 1947 Act. They are now, and have been for years past, determined by the ordinary appeal procedure, so we are not introducing something which is entirely novel; we are carrying on with something which has been accepted, which was not criticised by the Franks Committee, and which I believe we can make work in the future in relation to Clause 28 as acceptably as it has been made to work hitherto in those analogous cases which I have mentioned.
I realise that my hon. Friend is concerned lest there should be some slip-up in appearing before an inspector. In Committee he said that if these cases were taken in a court of law, as he wished, evidence would be heard on oath, and so forth. I would remind him that the 1933 Local Government Act already empowers inspectors, whom the Minister appoints to hold inquiries, to take evidence on oath. It empowers them to summon witnesses and to require the production of documents. An inspector would always be prepared to consider an application by either party to an appeal that his power in this respect should be exercised in a particular case, and I am prepared to bring that to the notice of the inspectors in my Department.
In Clause 28 and Part II it may be that we cannot overcome all the difficulties. As so often happens, one is faced with a choice, and one has to settle for the least imperfect course. I do not believe that my hon. Friend has fully realised that if we tried to get away from Clause 28 as drafted we should get back to the duplicate procedure, which was described by one hon. Member as triplicate procedure but which was really quadruplicate procedure, because in each case there was a right of appeal to another authority. Whatever one does to try to meet my hon. Friend's point—and I have been considering whether it could be met

without restoring the duplication—one realises the difficulties into which one would run.
In his Third Reading speech, my hon. Friend was arguing that there should be a more legal form of procedure where the only question which had to be settled under Clause 28 was one of fact, but he had not sufficiently allowed for the truth that under Clause 28 there will never be a situation where that is the only point at issue. I invite his attention to subsection (2) of that Clause, which puts upon the Minister who has to decide the appeal the responsibility of considering the planning aspect of the whole question, in addition to any specific questions which may arise under the various headings of subsection (1).
Once one accepts that there are planning questions to be settled by an appeal of this kind, the only way one can do it is to stick to the well-tried system of a hearing before an inspector and a final decision by the Minister. Otherwise, one simply gets back to the situation, which we all want to avoid, where there is duplication, if not quadruplication, of procedures.
The other major topic was compensation. The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) referred to this, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and other hon. Members. Once again I will try to make the position as clear as I possibly can. If the planning authority accepts that the site has existing use rights but nevertheless wants to close it down, the course the planning authority must take is to serve a Section 26 order and pay compensation. There is a perfectly clear pointer to that in Clause 15 (3, b).
On the other hand, a planning authority may wish to question the existence of rights and want to close down the site. In that case, if the planning authority doubts whether there is a planning permission, or whether there are valid existing use rights, its proper course is to serve an enforcement notice and the pointer to that, too, is in Clause 15 (3, b). An enforcement notice is subject to appeal to the Minister under Clause 28 and the Minister can be relied on to quash an enforcement notice if, as a result of inquiry, he finds that in fact the site has


existing use rights. If that is found as a result of the inquiry, then the Minister will give permanent planning permission, which will enable the site to be licensed under Clause 3.
If a planning authority were ever to give a limited planning permission for a site with existing use rights, which might be the sort of case the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill had in mind, then there would be the ordinary right of appeal to the Minister against the time limit condition. Here, again, it is not intended that local authorities should give limited term planning permission, except in some cases where it is perfectly clear that the land will not be available after a certain term.
I assure the House that when I have to deal with these matters on appeal, I shall not allow a local authority to whittle away the value of existing use rights by giving a short-term planning permission. The appeal procedure to the Minister will be the safeguard against that.
To be perfectly clear and frank, I must say that there may be occasions when a site operator who has existing use rights may nevertheless find certain restrictions put upon him by the site licence, not by the planning permission, because in future if he is to be running a caravan site, he must have regard to the site licence, and the site licence in its turn must have regard to the model conditions. If someone with existing use rights has been crowding twice as many caravans on the land as should be there, there is no question of paying him compensation for reducing the figure to what is in accordance with the model standards, but in the other case I give the House a complete assurance that compensation will be payable and there will be no means open to a local authority to escape from its obligation to pay compensation.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the case of a land user who has had a contravening use, but where four years have expired so that he has escaped the mischief of the enforcement provision, and who later expends money an developing the site, and who is required under the new procedure to discontinue, the direction could hardly take the form of a Section 26 discontinuance order, since that would not have

been an authorised use and such a user would be deprived of any prospect of compensation?

Mr. Brooke: I will examine the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made. This Bill will have to come back to this House, because undoubtedly certain Amendments need to be made in another place. I have given the House as clear a statement as I can, and, these being complicated matters, I would not like to answer any further and more detailed questions "off the cuff".
I agree very much with what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and supported by several hon. Members, about the necessity of a real desire to make the Bill work. In the circular which I shall send out when the Bill reaches the Statute Book, I shall certainly be prepared to include a recommendation of that character, because there must be no complacency. All that we are doing in this Bill is to create the machinery and the machinery has had a general welcome from the House, but it will require good will on the part of both local authorities and the caravan site operators and caravanners if the Bill is to be a success.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who has been so helpful throughout the passage of the Bill, said that the local authorities must see that there are enough caravan sites. Clearly, we must see that there are enough caravan sites, and there is the power of appeal. I should be misleading the House if I were to suggest that anyone with some caravans could necessarily, after the passing of this Bill, put the caravans on any particular sites that he wants. If caravanners' rights alone were being considered, we might very well have caravan sites right round the coast of this island. There are other people who want to enjoy the coast as well. While I accept that sites must he found for caravans, they may not always be what would be regarded by the caravanners themselves as ideal sites, because one has also to take into account the wishes and desires of the rest of the population. One has to seek a balance.
As regards the model standards, while I cannot, so far as England and Wales is concerned, guarantee that they will be published before the Bill reaches the


Statute Book, they will certainly be available before the Bill comes into operation, which is a month later. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked what would happen in Scotland. I have consulted my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary who tells me that the model standards for Scotland will not necessarily be the same as those for England. Where the circumstances are different the standards for Scotland may also be different.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Collard) spoke of the touring caravanners. I think that we have gone a very long way to meet the case of the touring caravanners in the Schedule. Admittedly, there may sometimes be a man who wants to put up somewhere and who falls foul of the twenty-eight days rule or some other provision, but compared with the Bill as it was when first introduced, I believe that we have made it into a charter for the travelling caravanner.
As to compulsory purchase, I hope that there will be very little compulsory purchase of caravan sites under the Bill, and quite certainly, when any compulsory purchase orders come to me for confirmation, I would be wishful of considering the amenities of the area as well as everything else, certainly if objection were taken to the form of the compulsory purchase order. If objection is taken a public inquiry must be held, and those most concerned by it will have an opportunity of ventilating their views in public.
I quite frankly accept that, apart from the case of compulsory purchase, there is a certain inherent clash between the interests of amenity and the interests of those who have caravans, and it will

be the business of the planning authorities and the Minister on appeal to seek to resolve those difficulties as best may be.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central hit the nail on the head when he spoke of oppression by delay. One of my hopes is that the Bill will diminish delay. A great deal of the delay has occurred through uncertainty. We are trying to get rid of ambiguities and weaknesses here and to create certainty where it has not existed before. Although I appreciate that for the first few months, under the procedure laid down in relation to existing sites, there may be uncertainty, and local authorities will have much to do in that period, nevertheless after that I hope that everything will move more swiftly than it has hitherto.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South asked me one or two technical questions. I can but repeat the assurances which were given in Committee, for instance on Clause 35, that although subsection (5) speaks of
an enforcement notice served before the commencement of this Act".
the development with which that Clause is concerned is development after the commencement of the Act and not before it.
I hope that I have covered the majority of the points raised in this short but interesting Third Reading debate and, with a final expression of my gratitude to the House, I should like to say that in my belief we all desire this Bill not only to reach the Statute Book as soon as possible but also to be worked with good will and understanding by all the interests concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — H.M.S. "DISCOVERY" (REFITTING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

10.27 p.m.

Mr. David James: This debate appeared in the Whip in the name of Mr. Davey Jones, and, while that may have been much more appropriate, I did not think it fair to the seven hon. Members called Jones that they should be saddled with the views of one hon. Member named Jones, and I for a change.
The debate arises from the dissatisfaction which I and a number of other hon. Members feel in the Admiralty's decision to take over from the Boy Scouts' Association Captain Scott's old ship, "Discovery", which it should certainly take over as one of the oldest, most historic and interesting naval ships in the land; to spend a great deal of money, as the Admiralty is spending, on refitting her; to return her to her place in the heart of London; and yet almost literally to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar by declining to spend the very small sum necessary to cross her masts with yards so that once again we have a square-rigged ship in the heart of London. They would rather have her, apparently, rigged as a bastard schooner.
I hasten to add that I hope that I am not guilty of an unparliamentary phrase in calling her a bastard schooner, because that is the term hallowed by many generations of seamen. Looking it up, I am inclined to believe that probably Webster is right in applying the second description to the word bastard, meaning mongrel, low-bred or hybrid. That is exactly what a ship looks like which is neither fish, fowl nor good red herring.
I should briefly declare my interest in the matter. I am a trustee of the National Maritime Museum, which holds the original plans of the ship, and very naturally we are keen to see her restored to all her former glory. I am one of the few people in the land, the sunny side of 41, who spent a year before the mast in a square-rigged ship, and naturally, like the hearts of many other people, my heart

beats faster at the sight of square yards. For two years I was Polar adviser to Ealing Studios during the making of the film "Scott of the Antarctic", and I am concerned that the glorious memory of Captain Scott should be kept green and before the minds of future generations of children. I recollect with a certain feeling almost of bitterness that Ealing Studios were prepared to spend rather more on a tank model of the ship than apparently the Admiralty is prepared to spend on the original in this respect.
This may seem a small point on which to keep you and other hon. Members out of bed, Mr. Speaker, but is it so small —the rigging of a ship? I assume that she is kept to act as a stimulus to recruiting, with the view that boys will see her and say that they will join the Navy. Otherwise why not strip her altogether and put a greenhouse or a drill shed on the upper deck so that she looks rather like H.M.S. "President" further down the river, and not a ship? This country is littered with small societies of ship-lovers whose proceedings are published and every local seaside paper carries accounts of interesting ships visiting. Sea Breezes, which is the magazine dealing with the working craft of a more interesting nature, has a circulation of well over 20,000 copies. I am engaged in publishing and often publish books on historic craft, and I can vouch for the fact that they meet a ready sale.
Finally, we can look to the advertising boys for some advice in this matter. One can open hardly any illustrated magazine without seeing a sailing ship being employed to advertise some branded product. I need only mention Cutty Sark Whisky, Senior Service cigarettes, Benson and Hedges and Broomwade air compressors, to give examples of hardheaded manufacturers who like to keep their products before the eye of the consumer by using a square-rigged ship in an illustration. I believe that the Admiralty could take a leaf out of their book.
It is interesting to see what other countries do in this connection. If one goes to Mariehamn in the Gulf of Bothnia one finds that Finland maintains an old British four-masted barque in perfect order as a memorial, and scores of people visit her every year. At Stockholm there is another British full rigged


ship in the heart of the city, also perfectly maintained. The Norwegian Government maintain Nansen's old ship in a special house. Everything she means to Polar exploration in the North with Nansen's drift across the Polar basin is exactly the same as H.M.S. "Discovery" means to the history of Antarctic exploration. Coming down to Gothenburg one finds my old ship, the four-masted barque "Viking", which is kept as a memorial of the great days of sail. In San Francisco there is a British barque "Baraclutha" which is kept as a museum to the days of the square-rigged sailing ships. The director of the "Baraclutha" museum was so moved by the story of Scott and the associations of "Discovery" that he asked me to approach the Admiralty to see whether they could have a belaying pin from "Discovery" round which to build a tableau. The Admiralty were graciously prepared to accede to the request and thousands of San Franciscans and visitors can see the pictures of Scott's ship in all its glory; but when they come to London all they see is a bastard schooner. So this is something which really does matter.
We above all other countries know how to do these things. We spend £1,050 a year on flood-lighting Big Ben, and I do not believe that anyone would cavil at that expenditure. We—thank heaven—dress the Brigade of Guards properly and spend a lot of money on tattoos, Beating the Retreat, Trooping the Colour and so on. I believe this decision of the Admiralty to be a niggardly one totally out of keeping with our normal custom.
London is the heart of a great Commonwealth built up on its sea communications and its sailing ships. Therefore, I seriously urge and request—indeed, I implore—the Civil Lord to reconsider this decision which I believe has been made a long way down the line. I could well understand the Admiralty saying they could not afford to keep up a memorial to the ship in any shape or form and save the money by towing her away and breaking her up for firewood. But if we are to do the job at all, with all the associations with Captain Scott's heroic performance and a whole century of naval tradition in the Polar region extending back to

"Erebus" and "Terror', I am sure that everyone would agree that we should not "spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar."

10.34 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am sure the House would express gratitude that my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to the Admiralty has been so courteous as to come and listen to this debate, and we are looking forward to a helpful reply. Hon. Members were impressed not only by the eloquent plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. James) but with 'the great authority with which he spoke. I rise to support him. I do so first because I am one of those—there are many hundreds and thousands of us in this country—who are particularly susceptible to the magic of ships and the sea. Sard Harker in Masefield's book said that he never saw the sheer of a fine ship without finding that its beauty made him catch his breath. There are very few of us who do not understand what he meant.
The beauty of a ship consists partly in her hull, but equally in her masts and spars. The "Discovery" belongs to the age in which ships attained their greatest beauty. It is, therefore, a very great shame that she, of all ships and of all types of ships, should be subjected to the indignity of having her yards stripped from her.
Secondly, I support my hon. Friend's plea as a Londoner. London is not a city which is particularly blessed architecturally. We have none of the magnificent architectural sweep of Paris, for example. We have never had a Roi Soleil, and the rather haphazard charm and beauty of London is perhaps the price we pay for the sturdy individualism of the Englishman. Therefore, we should all the more zealously cultivate and nurse such incidental beauties as we have.
The "Discovery" is particularly well placed on the Embankment in the heart of London to give delight to hundreds and thousands of our countrymen every day. Every time I drive out to my constituency I go down the Embankment, and I have some of the experience of Sard Harker, but it is tinged with regret and frustration when I see that a fine ship has been so very unworthily presented. If she is to be a recruiting ship in a sense, nothing could be more


disastrous than an improperly dressed recruiting sergeant. It is not in accordance wil h the traditions of the Navy that it should present a ship in this guise.
I ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to take most seriously the plea which we make to him tonight. The Civil Lord is very highly regarded in the House. When he sat here on the back benches with us, he was always alert, enterprising and ready with constructive criticism in exactly such matters as this. He is now answerable to the House for a great and glorious Department of State and for what I think is the finest Service of all. I hope that we are not misplacing our confidence in him when we say that he must be sensitive to the merits of this case, and we ask him not to disappoint us but to give us a sympathetic reply.

10.33 p.m.

Captain John Litchfield: I add only two further points to the case so ably presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James). The "Discovery" is one of the notable, and also one of the few visible, links the River has with the open sea. She serves as a reminder to all of us who pass along the Embankment that this River is the gateway to the open seas, that we live in the greatest seaport in this country, and that the River which laps these walls and the Embankment in my own constituency of Chelsea has the most direct and famous associations with the seas.
The other day I received a suggestion which was not very serious, although it was sent to me very seriously. It was that my old ship the "Vanguard" should be brought up the Thames and permanently berthed alongside the House. I hope that my hon. Friend, and perhaps the Minister of Transport also, will be grateful to me for not having pressed the suggestion upon him. Among other things, it would have involved dredging the River, knocking down all the bridges, and then reconstructing them.
I hope that my hon. Friend will look kindly on this proposal. It is fitting and right that we should have in the River a symbol of our association with the sea. The "Discovery" fulfils this rôle worthily, but I

agree with my hon. Friends that she should be properly dressed.
That brings me to my second point. We in this House are approving large expenditure on the maintenance and improvement of historic buildings and houses. I think I am right in saying that in the current year, 1960–61, we are spending £550,000 on the repair and maintenance of old buildings. If we include ancient monuments, the figure amounts to no less than £1,224,000 in one year, or about £4,000 a day. That is almost precisely the figure which we are asking my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to agree should be spent, not necessarily on a completely once-for-all basis, but certainly it would not be a frequently recurring item.
As we are spending so much money on famous old buildings—and I applaud this—we might look at some of our old ships. We do not spend much money in this direction. The country—although not, I think, this House—has spent a lot on the "Victory" and it has been a great thing for the country and the Royal Navy. I hope that in spite of the Admiralty's desire to economise and to see that the money which it gets is spent on naval purposes, my hon. Friend the Civil Lord will get this matter in proper perspective. The proposal is an imaginative one and would be widely approved and I hope that my hon. Friend will jump at this opportunity and welcome it, even though it may not be a strictly essential item of naval expenditure.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I wish to reinforce the plea of my hon. Friends. To those who feel that money spent on restoring the yards of H.M.S. "Discovery" would be wasted, I suggest that they should look at "Cutty Sark" at Greenwich and compare the difference of her full glory today with a picture of the same vessel four or five years ago, when she was a tender to H.M.S. "Worcester" at Greenhithe, and they will see the difference that yards can make to ships.
The Admiralty has responsibilities, as it owns this ship which is berthed in the heart of London, but I have another aspect to put to my hon. Friend the Civil Lord. It is not only a question of the tradition of exploration and adventure behind the ship, but also the wonderful work she has performed in training the


youth of this City. She was owned by the Boy Scouts' Association from 1937 to 1955. During that time, a large number of youngsters were trained on board. When the ship was taken over by the Admiralty, because the Boy Scouts' Association could not afford to maintain her, agreement was reached in which the Admiralty allowed sea scouts to come aboard at week-ends for training, and certain facilities were provided, including the use of the upper deck, lecture accommodation, the use of the galley and sleeping accommodation for upwards of thirty youngsters and two officers. I ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord whether he can promise that these facilities will be maintained after the ship's refit and that the accommodation on board—the galleys, and so on—will still be there when she emerges from Chatham dockyard.
The Thames is extremely difficult of access; we have a high river with walls on either side and it is extremely dim-cult to get access to the river. Therefore, H.M.S. "Discovery", in the position she occupies in the centre of London, is extremely valuable for the training of the youth of London on London's river.
I speak from personal experience as commissioner of London sea scouts and as one who has run courses in "Discovery" on and off for five or six years. We have always received great assistance from the Royal Naval Reserve and I hope that my hon. Friend will assure us that we will receive equal assistance when the vessel is handed over to the Director of Naval Recruiting.

10.44 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I welcome this debate. It gives me an opportunity of showing what the Navy has done in the past in connection with the "Discovery" and also what plans we have for the future. No one in my office could help but be moved by the eloquent terms and the reasonable and moving arguments which four of my hon. Friends have put before me this evening. I want to show exactly what we have done, what we are doing to preserve "Discovery", and how we regard this ship in the context of naval recruiting, for which, as my hon. Friend has said, she is going to be used in the future.

I think I can omit some of the history, but I should like to underline that "Discovery" was not a White Ensign ship when Captain Scott used her, and, in fact, she was not owned by the Admiralty, as has been recognised in the debate tonight, until 1955. She was presented to the Boy Scouts' Association by the Falkland Islands Government in 1937, and in 1953, after the war, the Boy Scouts, quite understandably, found the cost of running and maintaining "Discovery" was far too much for voluntary funds.
The Discovery Trust was formed and it was thought at one time that this would solve the difficulty. It was decided not to pursue plans to try to raise the money and take over "Discovery" and the Admiralty finally agreed to take her over in 1955.
The immediate cost to the Admiralty Vote for repair, refit and associated work in that year was £64,000. I should like to underline the fact that there were no yards in this ship when we took her over. It seems that rather exceptional enterprise was shown, because in the war the yards were dismantled for safety reasons and were floated alongside the ship. It will be recalled that there was a considerable shortage of wood at the time. Although 60 ft. long they did a disappearing act, which, I think, shows commendable enterprise by some person who must have been grossly short of wood. Anyhow, the yards disappeared.
When we took over the ship we could not give an undertaking that we would restore the ship to her original condition. Incidentally, there was no request that we should do so by the Discovery Trust, in which Peter Scott, the son of the famous explorer, played a very prominent part. We were not, as it were, under an obligation to restore her, but we still had to pay £64,000 to put her back in condition. The present refit and alteration will cost us another £34,000. As a recruiting headquarters we should naturally like her to look worthy of the task, and worthy of the Royal Navy, and worthy of her great historical background, but frankly I think it is not the most economical way of providing a recruiting headquarters in London.
But we are prepared to pay extra to preserve this ship and her fine tradition. We have continued to preserve Captain


Scott's cabin and other parts which have special associations. Captain Scott's relics are exhibited in her.
My hon. Friend asked whether we would continue to provide facilities for sea scouts. I can give him that assurance. He mentioned a figure of thirty-four. My information is that we always undertook to provide for two officers and twenty sea scouts at weekends and we shall certainly continue to do so, and free berths for eleven boats and facilities for mooring alongside. We recognise that this is important and we shall certainly honour our obligation fully.
Although about 35,000 people pay a visit each year to the ship, no charges are made, because she is one of Her Majesty's ships now and because we gave an undertaking in 1954. I am not saying we could make a change—when one undertakes a thing like this one cannot make a change in conditions—but I wonder whether my successors will not perhaps feel it unfortunate that there is not to be a charge as the unkeep of this ship rises over the next two or three decades, and it may be that we shall have to reconsider a decision taken in different circumstances.
The cost of replacing the yards is rather higher than my hon. Friend suggested. Estimates given to me are between £6,000 and £8,000. We have to decide whether we should be justified in spending this extra sum over and above what we have already spent. I give two figures. The sum of £98,000 is for the original reconditioning and the present refit, and, to be fair, that should carry us through the period of about ten years. That £98,000 over a period of ten years means a sum of £10,000 a year.
I am being asked in the most eloquent and moving terms whether we could spend another £6,000 or £8,000. I have to say, from a strictly naval point of view, that our chief interest is recruiting. We have to be careful at a time when we are most anxious to save money, and the philosophy of Gladstone is not absolutely dead in Government Departments. It is the small savings which in the aggregate make up something worth while. We must not expend £6,000 or £8,000 here, there and everywhere when our object is to get as many modern warships to sea and to uphold the interest of

the nation throughout Her Majesty's Navy.
From a strictly naval point of view, I believe that there are perhaps other ways in which such a sum of money could be spent. My hon. Friends have referred to the way in which London sees the Navy. Of course it does. We had it only this evening. There was the moving ceremony of Beating Retreat by the Royal Marines. We have other opportunities, too, in the Royal Tournament and at the Radio Exhibition, where we already have a first-class display. Some 400,000 visit the exhibition. We should not forget that we also have Trafalgar Square and Nelson's Column to remind Londoners of what the Navy has achieved in the past.
We have to come back to the hard and fast question, is it right to spend this extra sum of money on this ship? I am not absolutely sure that my information is correct, but my hon. Friend referred to what other nations had done. I think that if he examines the facts he will find that in a great many cases these charges in other nations do not fall upon the public Votes but are contributed by voluntary organisations which have a great enthusiasm for these things. That is my information, but I shall be happy to look at what other nations do.
The "Cutty Sark" was given as an example. I would point out that H.R.H. The Duke of Edinburgh played an enormous part in launching the Cutty Sark Fund, and £220,000 was raised in order to rerig the ship and make her the fine example that she is today. So London already has a wonderful example of an original rig ship, not, of course, of the same character but something in this direction.
In another place the Admiralty carries out the general maintenance of the "Victory". Special items such as rigging are covered by subscriptions to the Trust Fund. Thus, we do general maintenance of the ship, but the cost of special items falls on the Save the Victory Fund.
I well recognise that "Discovery" played a great part in exploring the Antarctic in its early days. We have just shad the Geophysical Year, with enormous interest in the Antarctic.


Captain Scott did much pioneer work in that sphere.
I hope that the very eloquent and convincing appeals which I have heard tonight may go wider than the House of Commons and arouse interest in the matter so that some funds may be raised from voluntary organisations and from those who love ships, as do my hon. Friends and myself. However, I do not honestly believe that the Admiralty can incur the very considerable extra expense of restoring the "Discovery" to her original condition of masts and yards, a condition which has not existed for over twenty years.
If those who wish to see the ship restored can succeed in getting, by public appeal or otherwise, the greater part of

the funds required for the purpose, then the Admiralty would be willing to find a certain amount, and those concerned would find the Admiralty entirely sympathetic to the cause.
I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming but at this time when there is so much pressure on Admiralty funds I have to weigh each item of expenditure and, in spite of this eloquent appeal, say that I can only hope that as a result of publicity the thought-provoking speeches which we have heard this evening may go further afield than this House and spur voluntary efforts to raise the money.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.